It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Tracking North Korean Ship

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The United States is tracking a ship that left North Korea for points unknown. The contents of the ship are not known at this point, but are suspected to be banned military arms.
 



www.signonsandiego.com
The “CBS Evening News,” quoting U.S. intelligence sources, reported that a North Korean ship possibly carrying military equipment banned by U.N. sanctions had left that country for an unknown destination.

The report said the ship was being tracked while U.S. officials tried to determine what was on board and what to do about it. No other details were available.

The U.N. Security Council approved financial and weapons sanctions against North Korea Saturday after the communist state's first nuclear test on Oct. 9 drew worldwide condemnation.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This could be the first big show down with North Korea over the recently imposed UN Sanctions. I have a feeling they won't take kindly to us tracking and possibly boarding one of their ships.

It would become apparent how short of a leash China has on North Korea if this situation comes to pass. Kim will be torn between his Chinese masters and his Gigantic Ego!




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Here is some additional info I ran across this evening.


news.bbc.co.uk...



But South Korea has been reluctant to be anything other than an observer to the PSI, for fear of antagonising its northern neighbour and compromising its policy of engagement with Pyongyang.



It also shares the same fear as China that any attempt to forcibly board a North Korean ship at sea could spark a military clash that may even lead to war.



Analysts say that, as well as the fear of an armed confrontation with North Korea, China is concerned the US may abuse its naval power if the searches are allowed to go ahead.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Jeez, oddly reminds me of an incident that happened pretty much exactly 44 years ago . . .


We can only hope that this does not turn violent, and that NK allows their ships to be searched.

But really, are they prepared to let that happen?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
i wonder if since they said today they woudl no longer test any weapons. They might be taking their nuclear weapons and equipment to another country like iran. to do their research.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Watch_the_rocks, what happened 44 years ago in 1962? Is that when the Russians planted nukes in Cuba? I am just not too certain.

Would turn out to be funny if someone siezes and boards the vessel only to find a large cargo hold with a single crate, and inside the crate, a single sheet of paper saying "Nuclear Weapon". Then everyone has their justification for start firing on each other.

The single paper with just two words on it would be entertaining to say the least.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
DYepes, that would be damn funny.

Yeah, the Russian nukes in Cuba. On the last day of the Crisis, the USN established a naval quarantine line 90 miles off Cuba's coast. Soviet cargo ships carrying nuclear warheads and IRBMs approached this line. The USN ships had orders to shoot at the cargo ships if they didn't stop. The Soviets had orders not to stop.
A full nuclear was to be launched if the ships were holed.

We came within about a minute of blowing this planet to little pieces. Thank God the Russians had the guts to stand down. Khrushchev was at least rational; this Kim character is not.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   


Thank God


Indeed He is the only one who has kept us from that fate!



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Nobody considers the obvious that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Taliban, and Al-qaida all work very hard to maintain Bush in power and thereby keep him engaged against them.

The North Korean people suffer more, but the North Korean elite care nothing of this.

Maybe they are looking for the Golden Mean of American attention, enough to get them riled but not enough to get punched.

If North Korea is looking for a fight, then a Republican victory keeps the game running. A never ending game of nuclear chicken.

If North Korea is looking for peace, then a Democrat victory will bring back talks. Peace is the only meaningful outcome. What card does North Korea play to get on that road? Surely not by making Republican TV ads.

The only sure way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend.

Columbus
The Dove



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

posted by Columbus
The only sure way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend.




www.signonsandiego.com...


Prisoners are provided just enough food to be kept perpetually on the verge of starvation. They are compelled by their hunger to eat, if they can get away with it, the food of the labor-camp farm animals, as well as plants, grasses, bark, rats, snakes and anything remotely edible. In committing such desperate acts driven by acute hunger the prisoners simultaneously incur the extreme risk of being detected by an angry security guard and subjected to a brutal, on-the-spot execution.



Kim Jong Il disagrees with you. He seems to think that the only way to destroy your enemies is to starve and summarily execute them! Even if they just happen to be the grandchild of a 'dissident'.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The only sure way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend.

Unless you have some notion of wiping North Korea completely off the map maybe? If that is your notion, then Kim Jong-Il is in the right to defend his country.

Kim Jong-Il's motives are not extremely relevant. Either he is completely insane, believing he can sustain or even win against the US, or he is trying to motivate the US to seriously offer him something. We do know that he loves American merchandise about as much as Soviets did before the Wall fell.

You could stand by and see if North Korea tears itself apart as the Soviet Union did. That does not appear to be the case. You'll have to wait for Kim Jong Il to die.

It seems that the level of government force in North Korea is an effort to keep the country from collapsing. We might want them to collapse, but understand it from their perspective. It won't be pretty and it isn't exactly pretty now.

A future for South Korea might look something like West Germany and East Germany. Do you think that the wealth the South has worked hard for can support and rebuild the devastation in the North?

No matter what, North Korea will be a burden to the neighbors and the world for a long time to come. That is a future that those in power there really don't want. It is a disgrace to them. They want to go down fighting.

Regardless of what your enemy believes, history teaches time and time again that aggression only escalates. That is where you get Vietnam and Iraq.

You must understand all of it. North Korea can't be allowed to fight it's way down.

Columbus
The Dove



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

columbus the dove
You must understand all of it. North Korea can't be allowed to fight it's way down.




Can't be 'Allowed' to go down fighting? When someone wants to go down fighting, it's been my experience that you either fight 'em or get out of their way. We can't do the latter because their neighbors are our allies.




It seems that the level of government force in North Korea is an effort to keep the country from collapsing.


I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for the horrors described in that article!



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

When someone wants to go down fighting, it's been my experience that you either fight 'em or get out of their way.


Stanard bifurcation falacy. If someone robs a bank, you either kill them or let them get away with the money. No possibility of taking them in peacefully.

Bifurcation has been the problem with the Bush Administration from Day One. You are either with us or against us. We either destroy them or let them take over. Peace is never an option.

Columbus
The Messenger



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
That's all fine and dandy, but what do you do when your enemy is the one with the black and white fallacy?

North Korea says give us food and energy or we threaten our neighbors. There isn't a `come in peacefully` option there either.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

That's all fine and dandy, but what do you do when your enemy is the one with the black and white fallacy?


My enemy is the one with the black and white complex. I'm trying to show that there is always a third option.


North Korea says give us food and energy or we threaten our neighbors. There isn't a `come in peacefully` option there either.


At what point do hostage takers say to the negotiator, "come in peacefully"? They will push for their demands to be met until their will breaks and they are ready to surrrender peacefully. And damn you will provide food and keep the situation under control rather than push for the sacrifie of the hostages.

The people of North Korea are way more tired of this situation than you are. The Bush Administration feels nothing for them. There is no experience, understanding, or desire to listen to serious advice.

Columbus
The Messenger



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

posted by columbus
I'm trying to show that there is always a third option.


My Goodness man, what is it already?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I've already explained everything, a number of times. This is why the Bush Administration is so obviously wrong to some people but not to others.

You essentially have a situation where the Bush Administration have only one strategy and lack the resources to execute it. So they do nothing. What's happening now is just nothing.

The only question is what does North Korea need to end this seige? This is the question that needs asking but no one is asking. The same mistake was made in Iraq.

They don't need food. The people need food, but the people are only hostages. In the bank robber analogy, feeding the hostages does not satisfy the bank robber, does it?

The bank robbers aren't getting away with the money. This means there is no way that North Korea can become a peaceful nation with Kim Jong-Il in charge. For the same reason, there is also no way the United States can become a peaceful nation with George W. Bush in charge.

The bank robbers aren't getting away with the money if they kill either the hostages or the police outside. So, attacking either their own people, Chinese, Japanese, or America, won't help them either.

That leaves only one possible outcome. Direct negotiation for terms. All past Presidents of the United States have done this. George W. Bush doesn't.

Columbus
The Dove



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Uhh... was the above post as confusing for others as it was for me?
Anyway, direct negotiations is the last thing we need to do, you do not reward violent behavior unless you are prepared to deal with such action again and again in the future.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

posted by WestPoint23
Uhh... was the above post as confusing for others as it was for me?


YES! This is why I must stop trying to get a straight answer here. I think Surrender on the part of the US is the main theme though.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
So has there been any updates?
Or can we expect this to sink (pun intended) from the headlines?

Looked for anything on google news and everything is from the 20th.
They aren't even talking about this on TV anymore.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

I think Surrender on the part of the US is the main theme though.

Surrender on the part of North Korea. They will not surrender without terms. Bill Clinton negotiated terms, then George W. Bush decided to toss out everything Clinton did, including any possibility of settlement with North Korea.


Anyway, direct negotiations is the last thing we need to do, you do not reward violent behavior unless you are prepared to deal with such action again and again in the future.

Direct negotiation is exactly what you must do. Negotiation is not a reward. It is a means to end a stand-off. The other options for ending a stand-off include: invasion or doing nothing and let them sacrifice innocent people.

George W. Bush has decided to sacrifice innocent people because he lacks the resources to invade and refuses to negotiate.

Why is this so confusing? What other options do you see?

Columbus
The Messenger



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join