Jump to content

Korean artillery exchange.


Manic Moran

Recommended Posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM0TZ20101123

 

(Reuters) - North Korea on Tuesday fired dozens of artillery shells at a South Korean island, setting buildings on fire and prompting a return fire by the South, Seoul's military and media reports said.

 

Seoul's YTN television quoted a witness as saying 60 to 70 houses were on fire after the shelling.

 

The military confirmed the exchange of firing, without providing more details.

 

Stay tuned for details...

 

(Seriously, what is that supposed to accomplish?)

 

More on Auntie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11818005

 

NTM

Edited by Manic Moran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did they not find a new nuclear factory in the north recently? That would be typical reaction from the North. And I doubt that the South would want to risk that those grenades land in Seoul, so they won´t do anything drastic, as keeping calm and selling Hyundais does make them more money, than bombing the North and no longer selling Hyundais due to a full scale war.

Edited by seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way the North is getting very plucky of late with this and the Cheonan incident and one has to wonder what their end game is.

 

Eitherway, in the DPRK if they wanted to tell it's people they razed Seoul to the ground - they could. Whether they actually did or not is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, for quite a while, when I first read the topic title, the following thoughts came:

 

1) A stock exchange-type artillery market place

2) NoKor and SoKor exchanging artillery pieces

3) An arms expo on arty at SoKor

 

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think that this North Korean action can have some logic not connected with domestic consumption or that succession thing. I understand that South Korea did in this territory some military training and North Korea demanded to cease this training. South Korea also showed that they don't want any escalation after sinking of their ship so North Korea can think that risk is not high in this action. And goal of action is to reduce South Korean sovereignty in border areas because next time South Korea would probably not hold any other training in this area - or that can think North Korea.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that South Korean provoked the attack. Intentionally holding "firing drills" next to the border and then crying foul when the North fires back is the mark of a provocateur.

 

 

I dont know if you have been to Korea, however most of the training areas and firing ranges are "close" to the border. In fact alot of them overlook it. Twin Bridges, Rodriguez Range, Tire City. We (the US and the ROK) forces have been conducting live fire and training exercises for years near there. Of course there have been altercations along the border, probably alot more than most people know. I never remember anything this drastic though.

 

I dont think South Korea "provoked" this attack. Kinda like saying I "provoked" a mugging because I walking alone in the dark.

Edited by FOXMG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they not find a new nuclear factory in the north recently?

 

My understanding is that the DPRK revealed it intentionally by inviting nuclear inspectors/scientists to see it.

 

A bit of youtube footage. Some of those lads got the shock of their lives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjJO7KrSAQs

 

NTM

Edited by Manic Moran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think South Korea "provoked" this attack. Kinda like saying I "provoked" a mugging because I walking alone in the dark.

More like living next to a belligerent neighbor with whom you've exchanged many heated words. Then one day out of the blue you set up some tin cans next to his fence. He warns you not to shoot at them, but you do, and then you get upset when he shoots a tree on your property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like living next to a belligerent neighbor with whom you've exchanged many heated words. Then one day out of the blue you set up some tin cans next to his fence. He warns you not to shoot at them, but you do, and then you get upset when he shoots a tree on your property.

 

At this point, I'm going to assume that I'm on "ignore" for Dear Leader's chogi boy, Dave. While that's a relief, I can't allow his idiocy in this to go unchallenged.

 

For the benefit of anyone else, this childishly simplistic analogy that is being made here is one of two things: The product of a lack of effort to research the issue, or an outright lie.

 

The actual, y'know, facts of the situation are these: South Korea has garrisoned those islands for years, since the end of the Korean War. Those garrisons include artillery batteries, and the nature of those garrisons do not allow the South Koreans to rotate the units to artillery ranges elsewhere. They have, thus, been conducting these firing exercises for decades, firing westwards into the Yellow Sea into international waters. Each time they do so, they've complied with international law, and notified everyone else of the exclusion zones while firing is going on. I remember being in range control while stationed in South Korea, and seeing the range fans for those islands, along with the notices to mariners that went out. This was back in the late 1980s, so this isn't some recent development intending to somehow "provoke" the North Koreans. Usually, these practice fires take place on a scheduled basis, so as not to interfere with fishing and other activities. This isn't something new, nor is it anything that the North Koreans have any right to get upset about: They do the same damn thing, in nearby areas.

 

The only "provocation" taking place here is the North Korean decision to bombard civilian areas, and kill South Koreans. Dave's insistence on characterizing these routine, long-established training fires as "provocations" is both facetious, and factually wrong. If the North Koreans were going to respond to this "provocation", then they should have started doing so about fifty years ago--Because, that's about how long those ranges and impact areas have been in use, from what I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like living next to a belligerent neighbor with whom you've exchanged many heated words. Then one day out of the blue you set up some tin cans next to his fence. He warns you not to shoot at them, but you do, and then you get upset when he shoots a tree on your property.

Except that they were shooting in the opposite direction, after notifying everyone.

 

EDIT: To please his eminence.

Edited by m1a1mg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of people running in the streets in the video clip. In such a situation, is it better to have gotten inside that

building or try to make a run for it in the open? (at least one guy in the open was trying to protect himself by leaning against a brick wall)

 

My understanding is that the DPRK revealed it intentionally by inviting nuclear inspectors/scientists to see it.

 

A bit of youtube footage. Some of those lads got the shock of their lives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjJO7KrSAQs

 

NTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like living next to a belligerent neighbor with whom you've exchanged many heated words. Then one day out of the blue you set up some tin cans next to his fence. He warns you not to shoot at them, but you do, and then you get upset when he shoots a tree on your property.

 

We can draw analogies all day to support differing opinions. I just cant get my head around the response from N Korea. Military exercises are held constantly near the D from both sides, some of this is saber rattling. An artillery barrage from the North seems a bit, well, retarded. I personally do not want to go to war against NK, spent enough time in combat to know I dont want that. However, if NK is blowing the hell out of S Korea towns, I guess its time to start getting a little more heavy handed.

 

But in no way did South Korea bring this on themselves doing some routine arty training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that if South Korea do not retaliate then North Korea did not lost anything (OK apart possibility for reasonable relationship but they evidently don't try to get that) and if South Korea stop any further fire trainings in this area which were held here for so many years then NK succeeded in reduction of South Korean sovereignty here. Such outcome would not change anything in material side of things but it can strengthen that faction in NK policy which ordered that and is presumably in power now and whatever their long-term goals are.

 

However South Korean retaliation is very risky. But even if SK did not retaliate they should not stop trainings here because NK success could lead to another action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JamesG123

I'm hoping they were prepared for Shinanigans and laid on some accurate counter-battery that gave the NKs something to think about.

 

It would appear that South Korean provoked the attack. Intentionally holding "firing drills" next to the border and then crying foul when the North fires back is the mark of a provocateur.

 

You forgot your :closedeyes: smiliey.

 

Both sides regularly conduct "exercises" within view of each other so that it can send the desired message ("we're tough. don't mess with us"). To the point where most exercises aren't to train the troops, its to send direct messges and to convey an impression of military strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...