North and South Korea exchanging artillery rounds?
Spoiler:
TOKYO -- A brief naval skirmish erupted Tuesday between North and South Korea, raising tension in Northeast Asia as President Obama prepares this week for a visit to the region. The North and the South blamed each other for the exchange of gunfire -- the first such clash in seven years. South Korean officials said a badly damaged North Korean patrol ship retreated in flames after crossing into South Korean waters.
It was not clear whether there were any injuries or deaths aboard the North Korean vessel. North Korea issued a statement that blamed the South for "grave armed provocation," saying that ships from South Korea crossed into the North's territory.
There were no reports of South Korean casualties.
North Korea has complained for decades about the sea border, known as the Northern Limit Line, which was drawn by the U.S. military at the end of the Korean War in 1953. There have been two previous skirmishes in the region, with North Korea's aging naval ships taking a pounding from South Korea's far more modern and better-armed vessels.
The Tuesday incident appeared unlikely to break the momentum of recent moves by North Korea to improve relations with the South and the United States, which had further deteriorated this year after the North tested a nuclear device, launched a flurry of missiles and repeatedly threatened "all-out war."
Still, in Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs warned North Korea that "we hope that there will be no further actions in the Yellow Sea that could be seen as an escalation."
On Monday, administration officials said Obama has decided to send a special envoy to Pyongyang for direct talks on the North's nuclear weapons program.
No date has been set, but it would be the first one-on-one talks since Obama took office in January.
Obama is expected to visit Seoul next week, as part of a 10-day Asia trip.
South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told lawmakers in Seoul on Tuesday that "no additional moves" by the North Korean military were detected after the naval skirmish.
Earlier clashes along the western sea border, even when they resulted in many casualties on the North Korean side, have not had a long-term destabilizing effect on North-South relations.
Those relations have improved markedly since August, when North Korea seemed to shift from a pattern of confrontation to one of consultation with the South about economic programs. Visits between families long separated by the Korean War have resumed, and South Korea has said it would restart a limited program of food aid for the North. Analysts in Seoul told reporters that North Korea may have started the skirmish to ensure that Obama does not ignore Pyongyang during his first visit to the region as president.
According to the South Korean military, a North Korean patrol boat crossed the sea border shortly before noon, ignored several warning shots from nearby South Korean naval vessels and fired its guns at a patrol boat from the South.
Ships from the two countries were about two miles apart when they exchanged fire, said Rear Adm. Lee Ki-shik, according to Yonhap, a South Korean news agency.
The North's official Korean Central News Agency said that the South sent a "group of warships" across the border to stage an attack but that one of the North's patrol boats "lost no time to deal a prompt retaliatory blow at the provokers."
Here is the Washington Post's article. Hopefully this doesn't escalate into something larger. Thoughts?
_________________ "I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock "There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi Formerly: Tulamian
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
They do. Note that this last happened 7 years ago. That's sort of a long gap, but the fact that it occured again indicates nothing has changed. Occasional exchanges of gunfire across the DMZ have been part and parcel of the "armistice" that's been in place since 1953. This is just NK demonstrating that A) its military is in a sorrier state than ever; it has outmoded equipment and relies almost completely on manpower and large numbers of artillery and antiaircraft guns to compensate and B) that it either doesn't grasp this or doesn't care.
As an aside, this was an exchange of naval gunfire, not artillery fire. Artillery refers to land-based weapons systems (although they can be used to engage naval targets) including both rockets and cannons, and in some circumstances some types of missiles as well. Naval gunfire is used for sea systems for a number of reasons
1) Naval cannons are almost always guns. Cannon means any tube used to fire explosive shells that are propelled primarily by burning propellant inside the tube, as opposed to a rocket motor, although some shells are augmented by a rocket motor. Gun, although frequently used interchangably with the terms cannon and howitzer refers to a weapon that fires at high muzzle velocities at relatively flat trajectories either in order to increase range (land-based guns such as the Russian 2S5 and 2S7) or in order to increase armor penetration and decrease time of flight when used to directly engage the enemy by the using platform (naval guns of all types). Do not attempt to apply these terms to weapons smaller than about 60mm; there are a number of weapons in the .50cal to 40mm range that make the terminology break down.
2) The vast majority of land-based artillery is howitzers. Although usually rather similar in appearance to land-based guns, a howitzer often has a somewhat shorter barrel because it is most frequently used to fire at medium elevations and medium velocities. This allows for greater accuracy in indirect fire because there is much less range error along the line from the cannon to the target, but makes the weapon less suitable for direct fire. Usually, however, howitzers can use their most powerful propellants for self-defense in direct fire. Mortars fire at low velocities and high angles and are used exclusively for indirect fire.
3) Do not confuse indirect fire with indirect lay. Indirect fire is when computations are performed (even if it's nothing more than a single person with a 60mm mortar eyeballing/guessing) to make a shell arrive at a specific point on the ground by travelling in a ballistic arc. Indirect lay is when, rather than aiming at the target, a known point on the ground is "aimed" at using an appropriate sighting system (or, in newer systems with INS or GPS, the location of the system itself is known with great precision) and computations are used to make the shell arrive at the target using mathematical models of the earth, weather conditions, etc.
Yes, all projectiles travel in a ballistic arc to some degree and there is no definite deliniation point between direct and indirect fire. Basically, it's like the difference between throwing a baseball and a basketball; you know which one gets thrown straight at the target and which one is more of an arc.
The vast majority of the time, indirect lay and indirect fire are used together and the same for direct lay and fire. I cannot think of any instance where indirect lay and direct fire are used together. However, it is not unknown to use direct lay with indirect fire. The 40mm grenade launcher carried under the M-16 is a prime example; the soldier looks through the sights directly at his target, then fires the grenade in an arc towards it; the sights assist him in computing this. The 60mm mortar can do the same thing although that is the least preferred method. Ships also do this when engaging each other at medium to long range.
4) Returning to the article; the difference between naval gunfire and artillery is significant because land-based engagements have much more propensity to escalate into wider conflict than naval, simply because that's where an invasion is going to occur, and because land-based engagement is vastly more likely to hurt civilians and damage their property. Hence the reason for my correction on the term; "artillery" implies land-based fighting. The political implications are significantly different.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Micheal wrote:
They do. The US/UN presence in South Korea is the only thing keeping the war from starting up again.
There's some degree of truth to this, but it's been less and less true over time.
SK is not the military pygmy it was in the 1950s. It has a large, powerful, well-equipped military that is trained exceedingly well. I would put it on par with Israel. (In my personalopinion, SK and Israel have the best trained militaries in the overall aggregate in the world; the U.S., Australia, Canada, Britain, and France are the next tier down. I don't try to rank more exactly than that because it's very much a judgement call as it is).
NK has a very large military, but like I said earlier, it is outmoded, its troops are poorly fed and equipped, and it has little ability to defend itself from air attack.
Basically, NK is protected from SK attack by 2 things:
1) SK does not want to have to clean up that mess and 2) NK has vast amounts of artillery that can be used to fire chemical weapons in the area north of Seoul; its longest-ranged guns and rockets can reach the city. (Even if NK has a working nuclear device it is highly unlikely that it has been miniaturized enough to fit in an artillery rocket)
SK is protected from NK attack by
A) the fact that the U.S. is there B) It's military has vast technological and logistical superiority and far better training C) If NK does attack it's a repeat of the same problem they had in the first war; it's a penninsula. Even if they push SK back, their flanks and supply lines just get longer and longer and more open to amphibious assault, not to mention air attack.
At this point, the main reason we need to stay in SK is the fact that the NK government is not really entirely rational. It is entirely possible that they may come to the point where they "use it or lose it" with their military, and that might very well involve gassing Seoul. Allowing the gassing of a friendly nation's capital without becoming involved would be about the worst thing possible that could happen in terms of our global situation short of global thermonuclear war. Essentially, any nation that is friendly to us, engages in trade with us, or otherwise is important to our economic or security situation would feel (as would their and our enemies) that they would no longer be protected by the U.S. even if hundreds of thousands of their citizens were being attacked with weapons of mass destruction.
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm Posts: 7507 Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
The way my brother-in-law the Colonel put it, "The US is there to protect North Korea from South Korea, not the other way around. If the US pulled out it would get bloody within weeks, if not days. The military of the two countries hate each other with a passion that makes our civil war seem like a picnic."
Admittedly, it was about ten years ago that we talked about it.
_________________ The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin
"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Micheal wrote:
The way my brother-in-law the Colonel put it, "The US is there to protect North Korea from South Korea, not the other way around. If the US pulled out it would get bloody within weeks, if not days. The military of the two countries hate each other with a passion that makes our civil war seem like a picnic."
Admittedly, it was about ten years ago that we talked about it.
In regards to the emotional aspect of it, I'd say the part about the militaries hating each other is true. It probably has a lot to do with these occasionaly shooting matches.
In regard to us protecting the North from the South.. that's essentially exaggeration for effect. The ROK can kick the DPRKs *** in a conventional battle any time it wants to. I don't, however, think the ROK military is willing to risk the consequences to its own civilian population just to have it out with the DPRK. Remember Seoul has 10 million inhabitants, and if you include the Inchon metropolitan area, that goes up to 25 million; the second largest in the world. A great portion of the military will live or have relatives in that area and they no more willing to risk their economic, industrial, cultural and other resources than we are.
It's much more a matter of how much Kim Jong Il/the DPRK government/military feels like rolling the dice if the U.S. pulls out, or feels emboldened to provoke the South. Most likely, they'd up the provocations, hoping the South would attack, and then claim victim status while fighting a defensive war and thereby avoiding some of the problems I cited above.
Of course, no one is likely to be fooled and they're likely to get their asses kicked in the process. Communist leaders have a bad havit of thinking their ideology is a battlefield advantage. They might survive if China intervenes, but if it's only SK doing the fighting, they aren't likely to. Even the first go-round they had indicated they had no problem with SK troops pushing to the Yalu; it was fear of the U.S. that made them intervene and.. well them days are gone. Our relations with China these days are worlds better, and their sympathy for the DPRK is.. rather less than it was.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Thanks for the clarifications on military terms DE!
_________________ "I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock "There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi Formerly: Tulamian
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Loki wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications on military terms DE!
No problem. Sorry if I sounded like I was getting on your case for it; it just helps to keep everyone on the same sheet of music. We have enough argument about labels around here as it is.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
To add to the confusion from the original article, in a related event they (NK) actually were firing artillery as well, while SK responded with Vulcan fire. NK said it was training, and SK said they fired in the air to show they weren't intimidated.
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
I'd like to see this related event. I don't quite get how you respond to artillery fire with Vulcan fire, and in any case a Vulcan can be mounted on several different platforms for several purposes, and is also often misused as a term to refer to any rotary cannon.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
N.Korea to continue artillery fire near sea border
Wed, Jan 27, 2010 AFP
SEOUL, Jan 27, 2010 (AFP) - North Korea will continue firing exercises near its disputed sea border with South Korea, Pyongyang's official media reported Wednesday, hours after the two militaries exchanged fire in the area.
"Such firing drill by the units of the KPA will go on in the same waters in the future," the (North) Korean People's Army General Staff said in a statement.
South Korea's defence ministry condemned North Korea's artillery fire earlier Wednesday as "a gravely provocative act" and warned it would respond sternly to any future incidents.
North Korean land-based artillery batteries fired intermittently for more than an hour into the sea north of the borderline, Seoul officials said. South Korean Marines responded by firing warning shots from Vulcan cannons. No casualties or damage were reported.
The North's army said it staged an annual artillery live firing drill. "No one can argue about the premeditated exercises staged by KPA units in waters of the north side," it said.
The North's shells landed on its own side of the border, but the military reiterated it refuses to accept the frontier drawn by United Nations forces after the Korean War.
"There is only the extension of the Military Demarcation Line recognised by the DPRK (North Korea)..." it said
JANUARY 26, 2010, 8:15 P.M. ET North Korea Fires Artillery; South Returns Fire - Yonhap
SEOUL (AFP)--North Korea fired artillery Wednesday near the disputed sea border with South Korea, prompting Seoul's military to return fire, the Yonhap news agency reported.
The South Korean news agency said the North fired several shells into the sea near the South Korean-controlled Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, following the North's declaration Tuesday of "no sail" zones in the area.
The news agency said Seoul's military fired back but there were no immediate further details. The defense ministry said it was checking the reports.
The South Korean military has confirmed that the North fired artillery near the border.
AP – South Korean Navy patrol boats ride at anchors at a naval base in Incheon, west of Seoul, South Korea, … By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 4 mins ago SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells toward its disputed sea border with South Korea on Wednesday, apparently to emphasize that the peninsula remains a war zone and push for a treaty to formally end the Korean War — a key demand of the nuclear-armed North. Such a strategy, however, appears to have little chance of success as South Korea and the United States have insisted that Pyongyang return to international talks aimed at its denuclearization in exchange for aid and security guarantees before any treaty can be concluded. South Korea immediately responded Wednesday with 100 warning shots from a marine base nearby after the North fired about 30 artillery rounds into the sea from its western coast in the morning, according to the South's Defense Ministry and Joint Chiefs of Staff. No casualties or damage were reported, as the North's volleys landed in its own waters while the South fired into the air, the officials said. It was the first exchange of fire between the two Koreas since a naval skirmish in November that killed one North Korean sailor and wounded three others. Wednesday's volleys by the North appeared aimed at raising tensions, and the likelihood of wider fighting seemed dim as long as the two sides show restraint. The North resumed firing later Wednesday but the South didn't respond after issuing two warning broadcasts, two ministry and JCS officials said on condition of anonymity because of department policy. South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported that the North is believed to have fired a total of about 100 artillery rounds throughout the day. The western sea border — drawn by the American-led U.N. Command at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War — is a constant source of tension between the two Koreas, with the North insisting the line be moved farther south. Besides November's clash, the two sides engaged in bloody naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002. The disputed area is a rich fishing ground. Boats from the two Koreas jostle for position during the May-June crab-catching season, and South Korea sometimes repatriates North Korean fishermen who stray into southern waters. The North also deliberately sends its warships across the border it feels was wrongly demarcated, while South Korean navy vessels routinely carry out patrols in the area. The North's military said in a statement later Wednesday that it had fired artillery off its coast as part of an annual military drill and would continue doing so. South Korean officials said the North designated two no-sail zones in the area, including some South Korean-held waters, from Monday through March 29, a possible indication the North may fire more artillery or even conduct missile tests. The North in December had designated an artillery "firing zone" along disputed the sea border. Analysts say the North's show of firepower is primarily aimed at stoking military tension on the peninsula, thus sending a message to the U.S. about its demands for the signing of a Korean War peace treaty. "North Korea is staging armed protests toward the U.S. to call for the urgency of signing the peace treaty," said Kim Yong-hyun, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University. Such a treaty is a coveted goal of Pyongyang, which argues it was compelled to develop nuclear weapons to cope with what is sees as a U.S. threat. Washington and Pyongyang have never had diplomatic relations because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula technically at war. North Korea, the U.S.-led United Nations Command and China signed a cease-fire, but South Korea never did. Earlier this month, the North announced its return to nuclear disarmament talks it quit last year hinges on improved ties with the U.S., including the signing of a peace treaty, and the lifting of sanctions. Washington and Seoul, however, have brushed aside the North's demands, saying it must first return to the disarmament negotiations and report progress in denuclearization. Concluding a treaty would "remove the danger of outbreak of war and create atmosphere favorable for the denuclearization" the North's government-run Minju Joson newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency Wednesday. Yoo Ho-yeol, a professor of North Korean studies at Korea University in South Korea, said Pyongyang was also stoking military tensions to express anger over South Korea's lukewarm response to recent gestures seeking dialogue. North Korea has sent a series of mixed signals to the South, balancing offers of dialogue on economic cooperation with military threats. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young, meanwhile, angered Pyongyang by saying Seoul's military should launch a pre-emptive strike if there was a clear indication the North was preparing a nuclear attack. South Korea's Defense Ministry sent the North's military a message Wednesday expressing serious concern about the artillery firing and saying it fostered "unnecessary tension" between the two sides. South Korean Unification Minister Hyun In-taek criticized Pyongyang for raising tension, but also said Seoul has no intention to cancel talks next week about a joint industrial complex in the North. The Unification Ministry also intends to push ahead with a plan to send 10,000 tons of food aid to North Korea in what would be Seoul's first direct humanitarian assistance in about two years, according to a ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity citing department policy. Korea University's Yu said that tensions are expected to last for some time. "But it remains to be seen whether more serious military conflicts will take place," he added. Despite the exchange of fire, the capitals of the two Koreas were calm Wednesday. North Koreans in Pyongyang wearing thick winter coats walked briskly through the streets while a female police officer directed traffic and passengers rode on a crowded tram through the city, according to footage shot by broadcaster APTN. The military tensions had little effect on South Korean financial markets. Seoul's benchmark stock index closed less than 1 percent lower for the day, while South Korea's currency, the won, rose against the U.S. dollar.
JANUARY 27, 2010, 1:59 A.M. ET North Korea Fires More Artillery Shells Near Sea Border - Yonhap
SEOUL (AFP)--North Korea Wednesday fired more shells near its sea border with South Korea, the Yonhap news agency said, hours after its initial artillery drill sparked an exchange of fire between the two sides.
The news agency, quoting government sources, said the North resumed firing at around 3 p.m. (0600 GMT) after an initial salvo that began around 9 a.m.
It said land batteries fired dozens of shells that landed on the North's side of the border, near South Korea's Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea.
The Seoul defense ministry said it was checking the report.
North Korea exchanges fire with neighbor Seoul says 30-shot volley near disputed border fosters ‘unnecessary tension’
updated 4:30 a.m. PT, Wed., Jan. 27, 2010 SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea fired artillery rounds toward its disputed sea border with South Korea on Wednesday, prompting a barrage of warning shots from the South's military and raising tensions on the divided peninsula.
No casualties or damage were reported, and analysts said the volley — which the North announced was part of a military drill — was likely a move by Pyongyang to highlight the need for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War.
North Korea fired about 30 artillery rounds into the sea from its western coast and the South immediately responded with 100 shots from a marine base on an island near the sea border, an officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul said. The North said it would continue to fire rounds.
He said the North's artillery fire landed in its own waters while the South fired into the air. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because of department policy.
The western sea border — drawn by the American-led U.N. Command at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War — is a constant source of tension between the two Koreas, with the North insisting the line be moved farther south.
Navy ships of the two Koreas fought a brief gunbattle in November that left one North Korean sailor dead and three others wounded. They engaged in similar bloody skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.
North Korea issued a statement later Wednesday saying it had fired artillery off its coast as part of an annual military drill and would continue doing so.
No-sail zones Such drills "will go on in the same waters in the future," the General Staff of the (North) Korean People's Army said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
The North fired more shots later Wednesday, but South Korea didn't respond, a Defense Ministry official said, also requesting anonymity due to department policy.
The exchange of fire came two days after the North designated two no-sail zones in the area, including some South Korean-held waters, through March 29.
The North has sent a series of mixed signals to the South recently, combining offers of dialogue on economic cooperation with military threats, including one this month to destroy South Korea's presidential palace. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young, meanwhile, angered Pyongyang by saying Seoul's military should launch a pre-emptive strike if there was a clear indication the North was preparing a nuclear attack.
South Korea's Defense Ministry sent the North's military a message Wednesday expressing serious concern about the firing and saying it fostered "unnecessary tension" between the two sides.
It also urged the North to retract the no-sail zones, calling them a "grave provocation" and a violation of the Korean War armistice. The war ended with a truce, but not a formal peace treaty.
'Quite disappointing' Separately, South Korea's point man on North Korea criticized Pyongyang for raising tension near the sea border.
"This kind of North Korean attitude is quite disappointing," Unification Minister Hyun In-taek told a security forum in Seoul.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency said it was the first time that North Korea has fired artillery toward the sea border. The Joint Chiefs of Staff officer said the North Korean artillery shells were believed to have fallen into the no-sail zones about 1.75 miles north of the maritime border.
Top South Korean presidential secretary Chung Chung-kil convened an emergency meeting of security-related officials on behalf of President Lee Myung-bak, who was making a state visit to India, according to the presidential Blue House. It said Lee was informed of the incident.
Yoo Ho-yeol, a professor of North Korean studies at Korea University in South Korea, said the North's action was aimed at highlighting the need for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War by showing that the peninsula is still a war zone.
"It's applying pressure on the U.S. and South Korea," Yoo said. He said North Korea also was expressing anger over South Korea's lukewarm response to a series of recent gestures seeking dialogue.
Earlier this month, North Korea called for the signing of a peace treaty and the lifting of sanctions as conditions for its return to stalled nuclear disarmament talks it quit last year.
The U.S. and South Korea, however, brushed aside the North's demands, saying they can happen only after it returns to the disarmament negotiations and reports progress in denuclearization.
Despite the exchange of fire, the capitals of the two Koreas were calm.
North Koreans in Pyongyang wearing thick winter coats walked briskly through the streets while a female police officer directed traffic and a crowded tram passed by, according to footage shot by broadcaster APTN.
The military tensions had little effect on South Korean financial markets. Seoul's benchmark stock index fell less than 1 percent, while South Korea's currency, the won, rose against the U.S. dollar.
Reuters By Jack Kim – Wed Jan 27, 2:31 am ET SEOUL (Reuters) – North and South Korea exchanged artillery fire near their disputed sea border on Wednesday, highlighting instability along a heavily armed frontier for the second time in three months. North Korea warned the South that more rounds were on the way as a part of military training, and then fired off another barrage a few hours after delivering the message in a state media report. Analysts doubt the latest clash will escalate and see it more as an attempt by Pyongyang to stress tensions on the Korean peninsula and press home its demand for a peace deal that would open the way to international aid for its ruined economy. "No one can argue about the premeditated exercises staged by Korean People's Army units in waters of the North side," the North's KCNA news agency quoted the general staff of the country's army as saying. North Korea has more than 10,000 pieces of artillery aimed at the wealthy South and which could in a matter of hours destroy much of the capital Seoul, 25 miles from the border. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said the North fired artillery from land toward the South but landing on its side of the disputed sea border off the west coast. South Korea returned fire from its coastal artillery. "We want to express grave concern over the incident that resulted from the North's illegal act that unnecessarily creates tension through live-fire artillery fire," the South's Defense Ministry said in a message to the North. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the North probably fired about 30 rounds of artillery and Seoul responded with about three times the number. The firing came when President Lee Myung-bak was traveling to Davos in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum after a state visit to India. His office was quoted by Yonhap as saying both sides fired into the air and there were no casualties. Earlier this week Pyongyang accused the South of declaring war by saying it would launch a pre-emptive strike if it had clear signs the North was preparing a nuclear attack. RETURN TO TALKS ? The latest clash also comes amid signals from Pyongyang it was ready to return after a year-long boycott to six-country talks -- between the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States -- on ending its atomic arms programme. "North Korea may want to return to the six-party talks, but only to ease pressure on itself and gain more economic assistance, which it really needs now," said Zhang Liangui, who is an expert on North Korea at the Central Party School, a prominent institute in Beijing. "So North Korea wants to control the pace of contacts with South Korea and the United States. Incidents such as this are a way for it to show that it can control how and when there is any progress," Zhang said. In return for resuming disarmament negotiations, North Korea has demanded talks on a peace treaty with the United States to finally end the 1950-53 Korean War and the lifting of U.N. sanctions over its two nuclear tests. Analysts say tightened sanctions since last year have badly hit the failing economy, especially its main export -- weapons. There have also been overtures for dialogue with Seoul after two years of increasingly tense ties with the government of President Lee Myung-bak who has linked improved relations to action by the North to disarm and end the security risk affecting the peninsula and the rest of prosperous North Asia. News of the firing rattled markets which soon recovered. Analysts saw little long-term impact from the standoff. North Korea has declared a no-sail zone in the Yellow Sea waters for two months ending in late March, a sign it might be preparing to test fire missiles. The area is near a contested sea border between the rival Koreas that was the site of a brief naval clash in November as well as deadly confrontations in previous years between the states which are technically still at war. About a month before that clash, North Korea raised regional security concerns by firing short-range missiles off its east coast. (Additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz, Christine Kim and Jungyoun Park in Seoul and Chris Buckley in Beijing; Editing by Jonathan Thatcher and Sanjeev Miglani)
_________________ "Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Ok, aside from the last moron implying that they were actually shooting at each other, ("exchanging" and "trading" fire) this is really just the usual posturing on both sides. NK fires some artillery that lands in its sea sector causing no damage and the south shoots off some rounds from what apparently was a Vulcan cannon or something similar...
This is just the North engaging in the usual "nyah nyah I'm not touching you" game it plays and the South.. doing I don't know what, or at least I have no idea why they even bothered to shoot. How exactly you fire "warning shots" in response to artillery fire with a Vulcan cannon is beyond me. I suspect a lot of the details are obscured by reporters using terms they don't properly understand.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Well, if the different articles are related to the same incident, could the "warning" shots from the vulcan cannons been at a NK "spotter" boat in the area as part of the "exercise"?
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Ladas wrote:
Well, if the different articles are related to the same incident, could the "warning" shots from the vulcan cannons been at a NK "spotter" boat in the area as part of the "exercise"?
Possible, but highly unlikely. I'm assuming that by "Vulcan cannon" they mean the K-263, the air defense varient of the K-200 armored fighting vehicle. This varient is armed with a 20mm rotary cannon firing 3000 rounds per minute.
Against ground targets, the system is listed as having an effecive range of 2km. That's awfully short range for a shore-based vehicle to shoot at a boat with, especially since the boat would obviously be not only offshore but north of the vehicle. That's also assuming that they, for some reason, had an air defense vehicle right up there on shore for some reason.
Even if the authors are referring to some other system with greater range as a "Vulcan cannon" I'm assuming its some sort of rapid-firing air defense cannon. The main reason to make a cannon that both fires rapidly enough to be mistaken for a vulcan and also would have long enough range that it could have been shooting at a ship is for air defense, and that leaves open the question of why you'd have it on shore there. There's also the issue that warning shots fired at an NK boat would land in NK waters and they'd doubtless make a stink over that too.
A ship could have mounted one of several rotary cannon and done that, but those are normally anti-missile systems; slower firing but larger guns are more frequently used on surface targets. There's also the problem of having a ship hanging out right there at the line and firing into NK waters neither of which seems likely and the lack of mention of any ship.
So no, I consider that unlikely.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
That's slightly more likely than the vehicle, but still unlikely for several reasons:
1) No ships or aircraft of either side were mentioned 2) When a ship or aircraft engages in some form of combat (even firing "warning shots") reporters refer to the ship or aircraft, not to their weapons systems without mentioning the ship or aircraft 3) Any "warning shots" would, of necessity, land in NK waters and be regarded as a provocation 4) Most importantly, it would be very difficult for a ship or airplane to make any useful spotting on land-based artillery fired into the water. If there had been some mention of an NK ship towing a target, that would make it far more likely, but there was none mentioned
The reason for this is that because the water is flat and essentially featureless, it's very hard to tell where rounds are landing. An observer on shore can give where they land in terms of direction and distance from his own location or a known point on the shore, but a ship or aircraft would only be able to do so in relation to a known point on the shore. Without modern GPS systems which NK doesn't have, a ship cannot self-locate accurately enough for accurate fire based on a polar method (direction/distance relative to observer) and an airplane would never use such a method anyhow since they don't stay still. A helicopter might, but it would have the same problem over water as a ship. When ships fire at each other, this isn't a problem because the ship is not using indirect lay (which I discussed above); it's laying directly based on the direction and distance from itself to the target. Artillery would be laying indirectly, and in any case, it's much easier to determine whether you're accurately firing at a ship than at a random point in the ocean.
Moreover, I really don't buy that this was artillery training for the North in the first place. They were just shooting into the water to annoy the South. If they wanted to practice, they would fire at a land target where observers could locate a point on the ground to designate as a target and then adjust fire onto, or, if they wanted to practice against naval targets they'd use a towed target. Just shooting into the water doesn't tell you whether you're being accurate or not. It's definitely not good practice for observers, and observers are just as essential to good artillery procedure as the guns or fire direction center.
If you'd like to read more on the technical details, FM 6-30 and 6-40 (numbers may have changed under the new numbering system but you should still be able to find them by googling the old numbers) will discuss Observer procedures and cannon gunnery at length.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Not trying to start an argument, but trying to resolve the first article, which says:
Quote:
outh Korean officials said a badly damaged North Korean patrol ship retreated in flames after crossing into South Korean waters.
It was not clear whether there were any injuries or deaths aboard the North Korean vessel. North Korea issued a statement that blamed the South for "grave armed provocation," saying that ships from South Korea crossed into the North's territory.
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am Posts: 15740 Location: Combat Information Center
Ladas wrote:
Not trying to start an argument, but trying to resolve the first article, which says:
Quote:
outh Korean officials said a badly damaged North Korean patrol ship retreated in flames after crossing into South Korean waters.
It was not clear whether there were any injuries or deaths aboard the North Korean vessel. North Korea issued a statement that blamed the South for "grave armed provocation," saying that ships from South Korea crossed into the North's territory.
Ok, I understand the confusion now.
The first article, that started the thread, was about a fight between a North Korean and South Korean ship.
The set of articles Vindi linked is about a separate incident that also happened recently where NK fired some artillery rounds into the ocean just north of its own border, and SK apparently fired some sort of rotary ("Vulcan") cannon at some unknown target. What I was discussing above was this second set of articles, which did not mention any ships or aircraft. One of the articles characterized the South Korean firing as a "warning shot", which I found rather silly for the reasons I outlined.
I don't believe they are the same incident; they don't seem to be describing the same events and the article Loki posted was from November 11th while Vindi's are from yesterday.
_________________ "Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 318 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
