South Korean naval ship 'sinking' possibly from North Korean torpedo

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260975/BREAKING-NEWS-South-Korean-ship-100-board-sinking-torpedo-attack-North-Korea.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8589507.stm



A South Korean naval ship with more than 100 on board was sinking after a suspected torpedo attack by North Korea today. The South Korean navy has shot at an unidentified ship in the direction of North Korea in apparent retaliation. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said that it is not clear what caused the ship to sink. A rescue operation is under way to save crew members on board but many sailors are feared dead on the stricken ship. South Korea's government has convened an emergency meeting of security ministers, according to state television. Authorities say the ship began sinking around 10:45 pm local time (1.45pm GMT) in the Yellow Sea. The dramatic escalation between the two countries comes after North Korea has warned that it was bolstering its defences in response to joint South Korean-U.S. military drills that were held this month.http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/26/article-0-08E1726B000005DC-141_468x356.jpg

Kim Jong Il seen today - Reuters



North Korea had already threatened 'unprecedented nuclear strikes' against its southern neighbour and the U.S over claims they are planning to topple the communist regime. Military chiefs hit out after talks were scheduled between America, South Korea and former ally China over how to deal with an emergency in the North. They also said claims that a report had been commissioned was evidence of 'desperate moves of the U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppet warmongers' for regime change. North Korea’s General Staff said the country’s communist system was a 'impregnable fortress' and described expectations of collapse as 'a pipe dream of a lunatic wishing for the sky to fall'. 'Those who seek to bring down the system, whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army,' they said. Dictator Kim Jong-Il has become increasingly paranoid in recent years and fears that his ill-health could lead to a coup. The sinking of the South Korean ship came just minutes before President Obama and Russian president Medvedev announced that they had signed an historic deal to slash the nuclear arsenal held by both countries.Interesting, will find out more as more news comes in.

[marriott0.01]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1260975/BREAKING-NEWS-South-Korean-ship-100-board-sinking-torpedo-attack-North-Korea.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8589507.stm


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/26/article-0-08E1726B000005DC-141_468x356.jpg

Kim Jong Il seen today - Reuters


Interesting, will find out more as more news comes in.

This actually scared the hell out of me :\ We could be on the verge of Nuclear War. Well, this has occurred a few times, but this is by far the most serious..

[xxMATTGxx]

This actually scared the hell out of me :\ We could be on the verge of Nuclear War. Well, this has occurred a few times, but this is by far the most serious..

It's ok, South Korea won't be on their own fighting any battles with the North.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's ok, South Korea won't be on their own fighting any battles with the North.

I doubt North Korea will be either, if China threatened to get involved we'd do something like call for a ceasefire or remove diplomats but in the end, we'd end up backing down. We wouldnt dare cross China because we only attack little feeble countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Adamm]

Sounds like fun is on the horizon.

Hurrah for us being US's *****.

[marriott0.01]

I doubt North Korea will be either, if China threatened to get involved we'd do something like call for a ceasefire or remove diplomats but in the end, we'd end up backing down. We wouldnt dare cross China because we only attack little feeble countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The funny thing is even China are putting sanctions on the North because they are scared as well, if it does ever equate to anything, it'll be a world war not a just a small petty Korean War like last time.

[xxMATTGxx]

I doubt North Korea will be either, if China threatened to get involved we'd do something like call for a ceasefire or remove diplomats but in the end, we'd end up backing down. We wouldnt dare cross China because we only attack little feeble countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they were a big enough threat they would.

[marriott0.01]

BBC just announced more than 50 soldiers have been saved. Don't know if that means about 50 dead or still looking...

[xxMATTGxx]

BBC just announced more than 50 soldiers have been saved. Don't know if that means about 50 dead or still looking...

Why would it be dead? Surely they would use a different word. I'm sure them saying saved, meaning 50 people alive are saved.

[marriott0.01]

Why would it be dead? Surely they would use a different word. I'm sure them saying saved, meaning 50 people alive are saved.

Lost at Sea? :) Better word. I said it because there was meant to be 100 people on board and only 50 saved so far, not the one's they've saved are dead lols. :P Yeah that's what I meant they've saved 50 people so far...

[Jordy]

The funny thing is even China are putting sanctions on the North because they are scared as well, if it does ever equate to anything, it'll be a world war not a just a small petty Korean War like last time.I don't think the Koreans would appreciate you calling it a "small petty" war. 3.5 Million people died, it was one of the biggest and most devastating conflicts of the 20th century.


This actually scared the hell out of me :\ We could be on the verge of Nuclear War. Well, this has occurred a few times, but this is by far the most serious..Not it's far from it, first of all North Korea's nuclear weapons probably don't even work, they've had very few successful tests, they've probably failed dozens of times too, except we wouldn't hear about them. Plus North Korea has done similar things to this before and things haven't escalated.

These two points are far closer to Nuclear War for example, first of all the Cuban missile crisis and when Norway sent a rocket it up, except the Soviets thought it was a nuclear missile heading for them and almost raised the alarm. I'm tired of people shouting "Nuclear War" all the time.

Chances are Britain wouldn't be involved in any conflict anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The funny thing is even China are putting sanctions on the North because they are scared as well, if it does ever equate to anything, it'll be a world war not a just a small petty Korean War like last time.

China aren't scared, China only put sanctions on North Korea because they get pressured into doing so;- and even then they are pathetic sanctions because the rest of the world hardly trades with North Korea as it is and China funds them anyway so its just keeping the status quo. You are right though, if NATO dare involves itself in North Korea then China would most likely do so as well, thus WW3 if we didnt back down because the Chinese most likely wouldn't.


If they were a big enough threat they would.

China is a big threat, a far bigger threat than North Korea. In the Korean War, as we approached the Chinese-Korean border (and we were so close to ending the war) China send hundreds of thousands of troops across the river to push us back, they ended up pushing us back past the halfway line and its only because of China that North Korea exists today. Theres nothing that says to me or reassures me that China wouldnt do the same again, especially when its in a far better position now than it was back in the 1950s just after the PROC was born and there was still infighting.

[marriott0.01]

I don't think the Koreans would appreciate you calling it a "small petty" war. 3.5 Million people died, it was one of the biggest and most devastating conflicts of the 20th century.

Not it's far from it, first of all North Korea's nuclear weapons probably don't even work, they've had very few successful tests, they've probably failed dozens of times too, except we wouldn't hear about them. Plus North Korea has done similar things to this before and things haven't escalated.

These two points are far closer to Nuclear War for example, first of all the Cuban missile crisis and when Norway sent a rocket it up, except the Soviets thought it was a nuclear missile heading for them and almost raised the alarm. I'm tired of people shouting "Nuclear War" all the time.

Chances are Britain wouldn't be involved in any conflict anyway.

Okay maybe my wording 'petty war' was a bit exaggerated as all wars are not petty, what I meant it was nothing compared to the scale of World Wars.

And I get what you mean about people crying Nuclear War, I'm guilty of doing it, because any country like North Korea is just crazy, it should have been taken down ages ago. The people of North are not the people I blame, it's their leader, the psychotic leader Kim Jong Il.

I also agree with you there has been closer things, and North Korea seems like a country who tease more than they do act. Then again, what if they did happen to get involved into a Nuclear War? Then you'll look stupid if you just took the position of thinking everything is hunky dory.

Also, Britain may not be in the war to start with, but that's exactly the same as saying America wasn't involved in World War II at the start, they waited to get attacked before joining a war, which could easily happen if this does happen to become a conflict of 'NUCLEAR WAR'.

[Jordy]

Okay maybe my wording 'petty war' was a bit exaggerated as all wars are not petty, what I meant it was nothing compared to the scale of World Wars.

And I get what you mean about people crying Nuclear War, I'm guilty of doing it, because any country like North Korea is just crazy, it should have been taken down ages ago. The people of North are not the people I blame, it's their leader, the psychotic leader Kim Jong Il.

I also agree with you there has been closer things, and North Korea seems like a country who tease more than they do act. Then again, what if they did happen to get involved into a Nuclear War? Then you'll look stupid if you just took the position of thinking everything is hunky dory.

Also, Britain may not be in the war to start with, but that's exactly the same as saying America wasn't involved in World War II at the start, they waited to get attacked before joining a war, which could easily happen if this does happen to become a conflict of 'NUCLEAR WAR'.The thing is, I won't look stupid as there won't be nuclear war, the people who continually shout Nuclear War are the stupid looking ones :P

I'm sure if a true nuclear war ever did happen between China and the US we wouldn't get involved, it would be far better to stay out and just side with the winner seeing as there'd be little to gain and everything to lose. Either that or become the world superpower if they were both devastated by it.

[marriott0.01]

The thing is, I won't look stupid as there won't be nuclear war, the people who continually shout Nuclear War are the stupid looking ones :P

I'm sure if a true nuclear war ever did happen between China and the US we wouldn't get involved, it would be far better to stay out and just side with the winner seeing as there'd be little to gain and everything to lose. Either that or become the world superpower if they were both devastated by it.

But most countries of the world would get dragged in if it was US vs China, as they both have lots of allies. Which I think is stupid, considering the US helped China out in WW2.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We are legally bound as a NATO member to defend any NATO country which is under attack, not to mention the fact the US has nuclear bases on the UK mainland anyway so we'd be buggered whether we offically joined in any combat or not. I would support standing by our allies even if it meant the threat of serious consquences;- we stood upto Nazi Germany and we should not shy away from defence of ourselves in the future. Although this particular flashpoint will come of nothing I suppose.

[Jordy]

We are legally bound as a NATO member to defend any NATO country which is under attack, not to mention the fact the US has nuclear bases on the UK mainland anyway so we'd be buggered whether we offically joined in any combat or not. I would support standing by our allies even if it meant mass death;- we stood upto Nazi Germany and we should not shy away from defence of ourselves in the future. Although this particular flashpoint will come of nothing I suppose.While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island. There's no point sacrificing this entire country to support the "US". I'm sure they'd feel the same way about us too, understandably.

[marriott0.01]

While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island.

For every nuclear missile North Korea has, Britain and it's allies have about 100 more. And we would have been better protected from Nuclear Attacks if Russia had allowed the USA put a missile defence system in Poland, but Obama had to comply with Russia's demands.

[Jordy]

For every nuclear missile North Korea has, Britain and it's allies have about 100 more. And we would have been better protected from Nuclear Attacks if Russia had allowed the USA put a missile defence system in Poland, but Obama had to comply with Russia's demands.I don't think he had to, I think he's a pathetic push-over who will go to any lengths to attempt to make peace throughout the world, even risking his own nations and allies security, and the funny thing is, he isn't even close to bringing peace anywhere.

I was referring to a China vs USA war, a hypothetical situation. If it was North Korea vs USA, I very much doubt we would be needed, most probably it would be all over before we could even reach Korea anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While you're right that we probably would be involved, I still don't think it's the right thing to do. What's the point in standing up for something when you're entire nation will be wiped out with just a few nuclear missiles, we're a small island. There's no point sacrificing this entire country to support the "US". I'm sure they'd feel the same way about us too, understandably.

Because eventually if you dont stand upto something, it'll get you in the end.

Adding onto that, we may be a small island but we have one of the biggest economies in the world and hence as a result we are one of the richest countries in the world. In World War II and World War I millions from across the British Empire died to defend the Empire, of which the mother country was 'this little island'. Size and numbers dont count for everything, especially when it comes to nations and wartime (as the various battles have shown).

[marriott0.01]

I don't think he had to, I think he's a pathetic push-over who will go to any lengths to attempt to make peace throughout the world, even risking his own nations and allies security, and the funny thing is, he isn't even close to bringing peace anywhere.

I was referring to a China vs USA war, a hypothetical situation. If it was North Korea vs USA, I very much doubt we would be needed, most probably it would be all over before we could even reach Korea anyway.

When I said had to, I meant it in terms as 'he just had to' not he was forced to, but that he a gullible idiot of a leader.

Ah, I see. China vs USA would be more of a serious war, but I doubt the war would get serious enough for Britain to be obliterated. Britain's defence system is state of the art, and it's good it's an island because it's more isolated. The World, especially Britain, have learnt a lot about defence from the World Wars, and Britain has only been hit twice by a foreign power since 1066, and both of them were the World Wars.

[Jordy]

Because eventually if you dont stand upto something, it'll get you in the end.

Adding onto that, we may be a small island but we have one of the biggest economies in the world and hence as a result we are one of the richest countries in the world. In World War II and World War I millions from across the British Empire died to defend the Empire, of which the mother country was 'this little island'. Size and numbers dont count for everything, especially when it comes to nations and wartime (as the various battles have shown).When it comes to nuclear war, the size of your country matters very much. A nuke hitting, London, Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh would wipe this entire nation out. The difference with WWII is, we were defending and fighting for survival, Nazi Germany began attacking us. There would be no point involving ourselves in a nuclear war we didn't need to be involved in, if we joined, I have no doubt we would lose absolutely everything, seeing as it would take so few missiles to wipe us out.

It's all very well standing up for something, but if you're unnecessarily getting involved in a conflict where your country is guaranteed to be wiped out, what's the point?

[-:Undertaker:-]

When it comes to nuclear war, the size of your country matters very much. A nuke hitting, London, Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh would wipe this entire nation out. The difference with WWII is, we were defending and fighting for survival, Nazi Germany began attacking us. There would be no point involving ourselves in a nuclear war we didn't need to be involved in, if we joined, I have no doubt we would lose absolutely everything, seeing as it would take so few missiles to wipe us out.

It's all very well standing up for something, but if you're unnecessarily getting involved in a conflict where your country is guaranteed to be wiped out, what's the point?

Hang on, you have in the past said you supported a strike on Iran and military action if need be if my memory serves me. So in reality you support strikes on countries which pose very little threat and cannot smack us back, but when it comes to defending our friends (the United States and South Korea) against an enemy that can smack us back, its a different story?

That is exactly the same type of foreign policy we had under Bush and Blair and its what I detest, double standards.

[xxMATTGxx]

The chances of them hitting us successfully is quite low anyway isn't it? We have early warning systems and god knows what else to prevent such attacks. Anyway back to the ship. I just got this through twitter:

"Update: 'Several' dead on sunken S. Korean ship - Yonhap news agency"

[Jordy]

Hang on, you have in the past said you supported a strike on Iran and military action if need be if my memory serves me. So in reality you support strikes on countries which pose very little threat and cannot smack us back, but when it comes to defending our friends (the United States and South Korea) against an enemy that can smack us back, its a different story?

That is exactly the same type of foreign policy we had under Bush and Blair and its what I detest, double standards.I'm unsure on Iran for the moment, however I do think they pose a very real threat to Europe, they have the capability to fire missiles at us, and if they get nuclear missiles too we risk becoming their *****. More recently though, I'm more in favour of stopping all diplomatic relations with Israel and pressuring the US into doing the same. This way, I suspect Iran would support the UK with this decision, and if the West began ignoring Israel rather than bowing to it, then they may not feel so much to make nuclear weapons.

I still stick by my point though, I'd stick up for allies in most situations, however if the nation is assured destruction, there's no point. The point of war is to save your own people, not sacrifice them for someone else's.