Al Queda? Not a bad guess, actually-—who would like to see a fight break out between the Koreas? Someone who would like US out of their hair (read: middle east). Am I the only one who remembers the USS San Francisco, our sub that supposedly hit bottom not too far south of here? I still haven’t convinced myself that wasn’t a mine they hit-—no gravel in the drydock during washdown?
Witness was on a local passenger ship——this is an extremely heavily travelled corridor which rules out an old mine. And the SK ship took the hit in the stern, which a mine could have done if the ship happened to be turning. The initial mystery to me is why they lost so many crew-—all that’s back there is engine room, mostly un-manned-—they surely don’t bunk in the engine room? Does it take 30 Koreans to man the stern watch? The key will be in whether the SK’s are willing to solve the puzzle-—and say so.
Not much new from S.K. govt officials today . . . still saying they don’t know what the cause was . . .
- - - - - - - - -
After visiting the disaster site Saturday, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told the press that the government is “yet to track down the exact cause behind the tragedy.”
“The vessel appeared to have been split into half,” he said. “But making predictions is meaningless in this situation, I believe. Please bear with us.”
The Seoul government is refraining from any comments suggesting Pyongyang’s involvement in the incident.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nati...00900315F.HTML
some interesting snippets from another Yonhap article today - some analysts suggest that if the investigation does point the finger at N.K., the current S.K. govt is more likely to respond then the past S.K. administrations . . .
- - - - - - - - - -
Bruce Klingner, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described the unexplained explosion as “an oddity in an era of sophisticated ships and communication,” raising a sea mine as a possible cause.
“Although initial media reports suggested a North Korean torpedo as the cause, that interpretation now appears to be the result of overeager reporters,” he said. “Seoul is now downplaying the likelihood of North Korean involvement in the explosion and sinking. A survivor of the sinking insists there was no onboard explosion, leading to speculation the cause was a naval mine, either South Korean or one that had drifted from the North.”
Klingner, however, would not dismiss the chance of North Korea’s involvement, pending the outcome of the ongoing investigations.
“Concerns over North Korean involvement remain, however, since the sinking occurred near the disputed maritime border which was the site of clashes in 1999, 2002 and 2009,” he said.
“Pyongyang’s return to more belligerent rhetoric was cited as cause for concern by the U.S. Pacific Command on the day before the sinking,” he added.
Some analysts in South Korea initially speculated Pyongyang’s disgruntled military leadership might have attacked the South Korean vessel to escalate tension.
“If the South Korean investigation does point the finger at Pyongyang, President Lee Myung-bak is less likely to overlook the incident than either of his more accommodating predecessors, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun,” Klingner said.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/03/28/56/0301000000AEN20100328001200315F.HTML