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.

 

Cheonan sinking: top ten conspiracy theories

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Cheonan sinking: top ten conspiracy theories


blogs.telegraph.co.uk

It is now two weeks since an international inquiry blamed North Korea for the sinking of the South Korean warship ROKS Cheonan with the loss of 46 lives.
An international team, comprising experts from South Korea, the US, Britain, Australia and Sweden produced parts of the tail section of a torpedo that matched captured blue prints of a CHT-02D torpedo being offered for export by Pyongyang.
The report concluded: “The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine…There is no other plausible explanation.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I haven't heard this list of conspiracy theories on the sinking of the S. Korean ship but they're all fairly interesting. Being that that region is teetering on the brink of war perhaps these theories should be given a bit of review. Here's the list:



1. The torpedo parts found on the seabed matched those of a captured North Korean torpedo taken by South Korea seven years ago. In which case, the Cheonan was most likely sunk by a North Korean torpedo, but fired from a South Korean sub.

2. A team of US Navy Seals who had recently been involved in the joint US-South Korean Foal Eagle anti-submarine exercises, sunk the Cheonan using a magnetic ‘rising mine’ deployed on the sea bed. Another ‘report’ says it was a limpet mine. A third a US torpedo fired by accident. (see 3 below)

3. The US carried out the sinking (see 2 above) as a pretext to scare the Japanese into allowing them to keep their controversial military base on Okinawa which America says is essential for deploying marines to secure North Korean nuclear facilities in the event of war. Two weeks after the enquiry Japan duly caved in to US pressure on the issue. Draw your own conclusions.

4.The recovered sections of the torpedo which the inquiry said were dredged from the seabed where the Cheonan sunk were covered in barnacles and looked like it had been under water for months, if not years. Further evidence that the torpedo parts were a plant?

5. The tail section of the torpedo also contained a marking saying ‘number one’ in a North Korea script – the so-called ‘smoking gun’. Isn’t this just far too convenient to be true?

6. Immediately after the incident US and South Korea defence officials unanimously agreed the sinking was “an accident” and that no unusual North Korean ship, submarine or troop movements had been detected. Survivors from the Cheonan were also reported to have said their sonar and radar consoles had picked up no unusual activity before the sinking. But within a few weeks the officials had all changed their tune. Is it really plausible they could have been so wrong? Or did they agree to a US cover-up operation? (See 3 above)

7. The Cheonan was sunk in a friendly fire incident/accident/North Koean attack (take pick) which also sank a 6,000-tonne LA-class US submarine, the USS Colombia. This explains why a South Korean naval diver killed during the salvage operation was working a long way from the site of the sunken Cheonan – the so called ‘third buoy’ theory. (This theory, circulating in early May, took a direct hit when the Columbia showed up at its home port of Hawaii a few days later)

8. The Gulf of Tonkin theory. The US has form for this kind of “fabricated” naval incident (see 2 and 3 above) say theorists, referring back to the second Tonkin Gulf incident in which the US is alleged to have faked a naval clash with the North Vietnamese navy. This disputed action was the pretext for securing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that gave Lydon Johnson the legal cover he needed to launch a full-scale Vietnam War.

9. If the regime of Kim Jong-il did order the sinking of the Cheonan, perhaps to bolster his reputation with a near-starving populace, why hasn’t he been crowing about it in public instead of issuing denials?

10. The entire episode is totally implausible. How likely is it that a clunky North Korean submarine was able to penetrate South Korea and US defences, evading all detection and then launching a successful torpedo attack before escaping, again undetected, back to base? Not very likely at all, say the conspirators.


blogs.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Nice little list. Although I think they ought to give NKorea a little more credit than calling their vessel as a "clunky little ship."

Good to see some people not on ATS think something smells funny.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal
Nice little list. Although I think they ought to give NKorea a little more credit than calling their vessel as a "clunky little ship."

Good to see some people not on ATS think something smells funny.


I don't know, lol.

Let's take a look at their subs.

4xWhiskey Class
en.wikipedia.org...

The initial design was developed in the early 1940s as a sea-going follow on to the S-class submarine. As a result of war experience and the capture of German technology at the end of the war, the Soviets issued a new design requirement in 1946. The revised design was influenced by the German Type XXI submarine and was developed by the Lazurit Design Bureau based in Gorkiy.


Sounds pretty outdated to me, despite what updates it has received.

19-22xRomeo Class ("Ming")
en.wikipedia.org...

The Romeo class (Project 633) is a class of Soviet diesel-electric submarine, built in 1950s. The origin of the Romeo class can be traced to the World War II German Type XXI Elektroboot U-boat.



32xSang-O Class mini-subs
www.globalsecurity.org...


Other sources.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...


While the North Korean submarine force reflects dated technology by Western standards, North Korean submarines during wartime would present significant challenges, particularly in coastal areas.


Emphasis added by me.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
10. The entire episode is totally implausible. How likely is it that a clunky North Korean submarine was able to penetrate South Korea and US defences, evading all detection and then launching a successful torpedo attack before escaping, again undetected, back to base? Not very likely at all, say the conspirators.



They need to study some more about submarine operations and capabilities.

A deisel sub can rest totally silent on the bottom until it picks up it's target on passive sonar. The waters, where this happened, are shallow, with a rocky sea floor and lots of background noise. In other words, sonar conditions are extremely poor. The NK's have had years to get to know these waters, they knew where they could hide their sub. The location of the exercise was not classified. It would have been fairly simple to position a sub a day or two in advance, wait until a ship came into the area, rise up off the bottom and conduct the attack and then run like hell during the confusion.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
All of these theories are interesting and I think that you could glean proof for each. The real question is...

If the North did sink the ship, Why?

Possible reasons could include: 1) They were trying to make a statement that they were in control of these waters and would attack if they needed to protect "their" coastlines or territory. 2) The South Korean ship was involved in spying or other Black Ops against the NK 3) NK is Bat Sh*t crazy and they just felt like firing a torpedo at a SK ship to see if they could.

I'm sure there is a 4th and 5th and 6th, etc. reason but we the public will only be given two opinions. It was an accident or we are at war.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 


#4 NK wants to show that they are badass and what is SK going to do about it since NK claims to have a nuke.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Stop Korean War II -- A miracle dynamite can blow up a distant warship10,000 times bigger, and leave its own torpedo chassis intact?

Blowing up a 1,200 tons PCC-772 Cheonan (1,000 times bigger) at distance, but leaving its own tiny torpedo chassis intact???

Want another reckless Korean War based on a non-scientific report? USA, China, Japan, S. Korea, N. Korea and Russia even can be dragged into WWIII? S. Korea tells us that an midget antique torpedo utilized some miracle dynamite which can blow up a warship 1,000 times bigger at distance, but able to leave its own torpedo chassis intact? Does this contradicted to all physics rules? Or is there any alien technology being adopted in making this N. Korean torpedo? Any one can demonstrate how this can be done will win $10,000.

Otherwise, should we totally ignored a censored rebuttal report which is based on officially released information right after the incident happened?




top topics



 
4

log in

join