ROKS Cheonan sinking

ROKS Cheonan sinking
ROKS Cheonan sinking
ROKS Cheonan salvaged debris.png
Four photos show damage to the ROKS Cheonan — clockwise from upper left: (1) stack-damage; (2) front portion (port side) showing the break point; (3) water pressure marks on the hull bottom; (4) a large fragment is lifted from the sea.
Date 26 March 2010
Time 21:22 Korea Standard Time
Location Near Baengnyeong Island, Yellow Sea
Participants Republic of Korea Navy (ROK)
Presumed the Flag of the Korean People's Navy.svg Korean People's Navy (PRK)
Reported property damage 1 ROK corvette sunk,
46 personnel killed
56 personnel wounded
Inquiries International investigation convened by ROK government.
Russian Navy Investigation
Charges ROK-convened (JIG) Investigation concludes that PRK sank the corvette using a midget submarine-launched torpedo.
Investigation results are disputed
North Korea denies involvement.

The ROKS Cheonan sinking occurred on 26 March 2010, when the Cheonan, a South Korean Navy ship carrying 104 personnel, sank off the country's west coast near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, killing 46 seamen. A South Korean-led official investigation carried out by a team of international experts from South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Sweden[1][2] presented a summary of its investigation on 20 May 2010, concluding that the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo[3][4] fired by a midget submarine.[5]

North Korea denied that it was responsible for the sinking,[6] but it was still widely condemned for the attack among the international community. The People's Republic of China was one of few countries to dispute the claims and findings of the report.[7] An investigation by the Russian Navy allegedly also did not concur with the report,[8] but this was not confirmed. The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[9]



Location of sinking

Baengnyeong Island is a South Korean island in the Yellow Sea, off the Ongjin peninsula in North Korea. It lies less than 10 miles (16 km) from the North Korean coast, and is over 100 miles (160 km) from the South Korean mainland. The island is to the south and west of the Northern Limit Line, the de facto maritime boundary dividing South Korea (ROK) from North Korea (DPRK).

The disputed maritime border between North and South Korea in the West Sea:[10]
     A: United Nations-created Northern Limit Line, 1953[11]
     B: North Korea-declared "Inter-Korean MDL", 1999[12] The locations of specific islands are reflected in the configuration of each maritime boundary, including
1–Yeonpyeong Island
2–Baengnyeong Island
3–Daecheong Island

The area is the site of considerable tension between the two states; although it was provided in the armistice agreement for the stalemate of the Korean war that the islands themselves belonged to the South, the sea boundary was not covered by the armistice, and the sea is claimed by the North.

The situation is complicated by the presence of a rich fishing ground used by DPRK and Chinese fishing vessels, and there have been numerous clashes over the years between naval vessels from both sides attempting to police what both sides regard as their territorial waters. These have been referred to as "crab wars".[13]

History of ship sinkings on both sides

In late May 2010, Bruce Cumings, Distinguished Service Professor in History at the University of Chicago and an expert on Korean affairs, commented that the sinking should be regarded as part of a two-sided tense situation in a "no-man's land" which has led to previous incidents.[14] He noted a confrontation in November 2009, in which several North Korean sailors died, and an additional incident in 1999, when 30 North Koreans were killed and 70 wounded when their ship sank.[14] In both incidents, the North Koreans were the first to open fire, though in the 1999 incident the South Koreans escalated matters by initiating a campaign of boat 'bumping' in order to stop what the South saw as a violation of its maritime borders. Considering these previous incidents, Cumings said that the Cheonan sinking was "ripped out of context, the context of a continuing war that has never ended.[14]

Military concerns

General Walter Sharp, Commander of the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, had on 24 March (US Eastern time), testified before the US House Appropriations Committee, in part, on the need to strengthen the ROK-US alliance, the need for on-site advanced training of the Air Force, the need to improve the quality of life and provide tour normalization for troops serving one-year tours, planned relocation of bases, and the scheduled 2012 transition of Operational Control (OPCON) to ROK hands. He also warned of the possibility that North Korea could "even launch an attack on the ROK."[15]

Sinking of Cheonan

Thermal image of Cheonan sinking
Another Pohang-class corvette, Sinsung

On the night of the sinking the U.S. and South Korea Navies were engaged in joint anti-submarine warfare exercises 75 miles away from the site of the sinking.[16] This exercise was part of the annual Key Resolve/Foal Eagle war exercise, described as "one of the world's largest simulated exercises", and involved many modern U.S. and South Korean warships.[17][18]

On Friday, 26 March 2010, an explosion was reported to have occurred near the Cheonan, a Pohang-class corvette,[19] near the stern of the ship at 9:22 p.m. local time.[20][21] (12:22 p.m.GMT/UTC) This caused the ship to break in half five minutes afterward, sinking at approximately 9:30 p.m.(2130 hrs) local time about 1 nautical mile (1.9 km) off the south-west coast of Baengnyeong Island.[22][23][24]

Some initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, and that a South Korean vessel had returned fire,[25] however the South Korean Ministry of Defense stressed in the first press briefings after the sinking that there was "no indication of North Korean involvement".[26][27] Several theories have subsequently been put forth by various agencies as to the cause of the sinking.[28][29] Early reports also suggested that South Korean Navy units had shot at an unidentified ship heading towards North Korea, however a defense official later said that this target may have been a flock of birds that were misidentified on radar.[30]

The ship had a crew of 104 men at the time of sinking, and 58 crewmembers were rescued by 11:13 p.m. local time.[21] The remaining 46 crew were presumably killed.[31]

The stern of the Cheonan settled on its left side in 45 meter deep water close to the site of the sinking, but the bow section took longer to sink and settled overturned in shallow water 6.4 kilometres (3.5 nmi) away with a small part of the hull visible above the water.[23][31]

Rescue efforts

Vice Admiral Kim Jung Du, commander for the Republic of Korea Navy salvage efforts, and Rear Adm. Richard Landolt, on scene commander of US support to ROK salvage efforts, discuss salvage operations aboard the ROKS Dokdo

Initially six South Korean Navy and two South Korean Coastguard ships assisted in the rescue as well as aircraft from the Republic of Korea Air Force.[32] It was reported on March 27 that hopes of finding the 46 missing crew alive were fading. Survival time in the water was estimated at about two hours and large waves were hampering rescue attempts.[33][34] After the sinking, President Lee said that recovery of any survivors was the main priority. Air was pumped into the ship to keep any survivors alive.[35]

During the course of the search and rescue effort over 24 military vessels were involved,[36] including at least four US Navy vessels, the USNS Salvor, the USS Harpers Ferry, the USS Curtis Wilbur, and the USS Shiloh.[37]

On 30 March 2010 it was reported that one South Korean naval diver had died after losing consciousness whilst searching for survivors and another had been hospitalised.[38]

On 3 April 2010, South Korean officials said that a private fishing boat involved in the rescue operations had collided with a Cambodian freighter, sinking the fishing boat and killing at least two people, with seven reported missing.[39] The same day, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of South Korea said that one body of the 46 missing sailors had been found.[39][40]

Later on 3 April 2010 South Korea called off the rescue operation for the missing sailors, after families of the sailors asked for the operation to be suspended for fear of further casualties among the rescue divers. The military's focus then shifted towards salvage operations, which were predicted to take up to a month to complete.[39]


The first, stern section, recovery site

On 15 April 2010, the stern section of the ship was winched from the seabed by a large floating crane, drained of water and placed on a barge for transportation to the Pyongtaek navy base.[41] On 23 April 2010, the stack was recovered.[21] The same crane raised the bow portion of the Cheonan on 24 April 2010.[42] The salvaged parts of the ship were taken to Pyongtaek navy base for an investigation into the cause of the sinking by both South Korean and foreign experts.[41]

The bodies of 40 personnel out of 46 who went down with the ship were recovered.[43]

Cause of sinking

Early speculation

South Korean officials initially downplayed suggestions that North Korea was responsible for the sinking.[26] On 29 March 2010, following an underwater examination of the wreck, Defense Minister Kim Tae-Young stated that the explosion may have been caused by a North Korean mine, possibly left over from the Korean War.[36] Later in the week, on 2 April Kim said it was a "likely possibility" that a torpedo had sunk the Cheonan.[44]

The South Korean newspaper The Chosun Ilbo reported on 31 March 2010 that a North Korean submarine was observed near the site of the sinking by South Korean and American intelligence agencies.[45] Another report from the same newspaper said that Captain Choi Won-il of the Cheonan made a call on his mobile phone right after the explosion in which he said "We are being attacked by the enemy."[46]

On 30 March 2010, Defence ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae, dismissed speculation that a submarine could have torpedoed the ship, stating that no "extraordinary activities" had been confirmed.[47] However, on 2 April 2010, The Chosun Ilbo cited unnamed defense agency officers as speculating that a torpedo from a North Korean two-man submersible could have sunk the ship, as there was so far no evidence of an internal explosion.[48] In a separate statement later the same day, the Defense Ministry said that its investigation had ruled out the possibility of an internal explosion, as testimony from survivors had not supported such a conclusion.[37] The ministry, however, reiterated that it would not speculate on the cause until its investigation was complete.[48]

Director of the Pusan National University Ship Structural Mechanics Laboratory, Jeom Kee Paik,[49] suggested Cheonan may have grounded in the area's shallow water, which is not usually navigated, and took in water from the damaged bottom before breaking in two. South Korean media reports had stated that the hull was found to have split cleanly, suggesting a non-explosive cause.[50]

On 7 April 2010, the chairman of the South Korean National Assembly's Defense Committee, Kim Hak-song, stated that damage to the ship was of a type that is "inevitably the result of a torpedo or mine attack."[51] The same day, National Intelligence Service Director Won Sei-hoon stated that according to their intelligence, and that obtained from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, there was no unusual North Korean activity on the day of the sinking.[52]

On 25 April 2010, Defense Minister Kim said that the most likely cause of the explosion that sank the Cheonan was a torpedo; his statements were the first time that a South Korean official publicly cited such a cause. Kim said that "A bubble jet caused by a heavy torpedo is thought to be the most likely thing to be blamed, but various other possibilities are also under review." A bubble jet is caused by an underwater explosion which changes the pressure of water, and whose force can cause a ship to break apart. The bubble jet theory was supported by one of the investigators into the incident, who had said that there was no evidence that an explosion had occurred in contact with a ship, and that a non-contact explosion had most likely broken the ship in half.[53]

The Hankyoreh newspaper and other sources have questioned how an anti-submarine corvette such as the Cheonan in the middle of a joint South Korean-U.S. naval exercise could have failed to detect an attacking submarine or at least its torpedo.[54]


South Korean and US Navy admirals inspecting the wreckage of the Cheonan at Pyeongtaek on 13 September 2010.

After raising the ship, South Korea and the United States formed a joint investigative team to discover the cause of the sinking.[55] Later South Korea announced that it intended to form an international group to investigate the sinking including Canada, Britain, Sweden and Australia.[56][57]

On 16 April 2010, Yoon Duk-yong, co-chairman of the investigation team, said "In an initial examination of the Cheonan's stern, South Korean and U.S. investigators found no traces showing that the hull had been hit directly by a torpedo. Instead, we've found traces proving that a powerful explosion caused possibly by a torpedo had occurred underwater. The explosion might have created a bubble jet that eventually generated an enormous shock wave and caused the ship to break in two."[58] Traces of an explosive chemical substance used in torpedoes, RDX, were later found in May 2010.[59]

The Washington Post reported on 19 May 2010, that a team of investigators from Sweden, Australia, Britain, and the United States had concluded that a North Korean torpedo sank the ship. The team found that the torpedo used was identical to a North Korean torpedo previously captured by South Korea.[60] On 25 April 2010, the investigative team announced that the cause of the sinking was a non-contact underwater explosion.[61]

On 7 May 2010, a government official said that a team of South Korean civilian and military experts[62] had found traces of RDX, a high explosive more powerful than TNT and used in torpedoes.[63] On 19 May 2010, the discovery of a fragment of metal containing a serial number similar to one on a North Korean torpedo salvaged by South Korea in 2003 was announced.[64]

In their summary for the United Nations Security Council, the investigation group was described as the "Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group of the Republic of Korea with the participation of international experts from Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, comprising the Republic of Korea, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States," which consisted of "25 experts from 10 top Korean expert agencies, 22 military experts, 3 experts recommended by the National Assembly, and 24 foreign experts constituting 4 support teams".[1]

Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group (JIG) report


On 20 May the South Korean led investigation group released a summary of their report[2][21][65] in which they concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack, commenting that "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine." The inquiry also alleged that a group of small submarines, escorted by a support ship, departed from a North Korean naval base a few days before the sinking.[3][66][67][68] The specific weapon used was alleged to be a North Korean manufactured CHT-02D torpedo, of which substantial parts were recovered.[69]

According to the Chosun Ilbo, South Korean investigators told their journalists that they believe that one or two North Korean submarines, a Yono class submarine and the other a Sang-O class submarine, departed a naval base at Cape Bipagot accompanied by a support ship on 23 March 2010. One of the subs, according to the report, detoured around to the west side of Baengnyeong Island, arriving on 25 March 2010. There, it waited about 30 meters under the ocean's surface in waters 40 to 50 meters deep for the Cheonan to pass by. Investigators believe that the submarine fired the torpedo from about 3 km away. The attack appears to have been timed for a period when tidal forces in the area were slow. The North Korean vessels returned to port on 28 March 2010.[5] However such detailed information on the North Korean submarine movements, and attack position, was not in the official summary or final report.[70]

The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on 15 May which include the 5×5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section, was claimed to match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes. However an incorrect, though similar, torpedo schematic had by mistake been shown at the televised RIG briefing for comparison with the recovered parts.[71] The correct schematic has never been made public. The markings in Hangul, which reads "1번" (or No. 1 in English), found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo, but inconsistent with one found seven years ago, which is marked "4호."[54] Critics have pointed out that '호" is the term used most often in the North, rather than "번."[54] Russian and Chinese torpedoes are marked in their respective languages. The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods.[2]

Simulations indicated that 250 kg of TNT equivalent explosive at 6 to 9 m depth, 3 m to the port of the center line, would result in the damage seen to the Cheonan.[72]

The full report was not been released to the public at this time,[73] though the South Korean legislature was provided with a five-page synopsis of the report.[74]

The North Korean Central News Agency released a response to the investigation on 28 May 2010, asserting, amongst other things, that it is unbelievable that part of a torpedo doing so much damage to a ship would survive:

"the assertion that the screw shaft and engine remained undamaged and unchanged in shape is also a laughing shock. Even U.S. and British members of the international investigation team, which had blindly backed the south Korean regime in its "investigation", were perplexed at the exhibit in a glass box."[75]

Full report

A draft copy of the report was obtained by Time Magazine in early August 2010, before the final report was released, which also obtained information about the final copy. According to Time, the report presents evidence for a total of eleven different reasons why the ship sank, all of which were dismissed except for that of North Korean involvement, which is considered a "high possibility."[73]

In support of this conclusion, the report says that witnesses had reported seeing flashes of light or sounds of an explosion, as well as that the US Navy analysis of the wreck concluded that a torpedo containing 250 kilograms of explosives had collided with Cheonan six to nine meters below the waterline. Damage to the hull supported this conclusion, while inconsistent with what would be expected if the ship had run aground or had been hit with a missile.[73]

On 13 September 2010, the full report was released.[70] It concluded that Cheonan had been sunk due to a torpedo explosion, which, while not having contacted the ship, exploded several meters from the hull of the ship and caused a shockwave and bubble effect of sufficient strength to severely damage and sink the ship.[76]

South Korea skepticism

According to a survey conducted by Seoul National University's Institute for Peace and Unification Studies, less than one third of South Koreans trust the findings of the multinational panel.[77][78] However a later survey by the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper in 2011 found that 67 percent of South Koreans aged between 19 and 29 believed the government’s report that the Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean submersible.[79] Lee Jung Hee, a lawmaker with the opposition Democratic Labor Party, was sued for defamation by seven people at South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. Lee said during a speech in parliament that while the Defense Ministry had said there was no feed from a thermal observation device showing the moment the warship’s stern and bow split apart, such a video did exist. Prosecutors then questioned Shin Sang-cheol, who served on the panel that investigated the incident and also runs Seoprise, over his assertion that the Cheonan sank in an accident[80] and that the evidence linking the North to the torpedo was tampered with. The Defense Ministry asked the National Assembly to eject Shin from the panel for "arousing public mistrust."[81][82] Shin stated that he doubted the official conclusion on the sinking, saying that when he looked at the dead sailors' bodies, they bore no signs of an explosion.[74] Shin wrote a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showing the evidence for his contention that the submarine ran aground. He then speculates that a collision with another vessel was also likely.[83]

Russian Navy experts assessment

Near the end of May a team of Russian Navy submarine and torpedo experts visited South Korea to conduct an assessment of the South Korean led investigation. The team returned to Russia with samples for further physical-chemical analysis.[84] No official statement on the assessment has been made. It was claimed that the assessment concluded Cheonan was not sunk by a North Korean bubble jet torpedo, but did not come to any firm conclusion about the cause of the sinking.[85] The Hindu quoted a Russian Navy source stating that "after examining the available evidence and the ship wreckage Russian experts came to the conclusion that a number of arguments produced by the international investigation in favour of the DPRK's involvement in the corvette sinking were not weighty enough”.[86]

On 27 July 2010, The Hankyoreh published what it claimed was a detailed summary of the Russian Navy expert team’s analysis.[8] According to The Hankyoreh, the Russian investigators concluded that Cheonan touched the sea floor and damaged one of its propellers prior to a non-contact explosion, possibly caused by setting off a mine while the ship was trying to maneuver into deeper water. Visual examination of the torpedo parts South Korea found purportedly indicated that it had been in the water for more than 6 months.[87] On the following day South Korean officials responded with "a full-scale refutation".[88]

On 3 August 2010 Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that his country's investigative report's conclusions into the sinking would not be made public.[89]

Chinese claims

During talks between the American and Chinese governments in late May 2010, Chinese officials are reported by New America Media to have claimed that the sinking of the Cheonan had been as a result of an American rising mine, which is moored to the seabed and propels itself into a ship detected by sound or magnetics, planted during anti-submarine exercises that were conducted by the South Korean and US navies shortly before the sinking. To back up their claims, the Chinese said that North Korean submarines such as the one believed to have sunk the Cheonan were incapable of moving undetected within South Korean waters, and a rising mine would have damaged the ship by splitting the hull, as was done to the Cheonan, rather than simply holing the vessel as a conventional torpedo does. A conventional torpedo traveling at 40-50 knots would also be completely destroyed upon impact, which contradicts the torpedo parts found later.[7]

Other international research

A separate investigation conducted by scientists at the University of Manitoba yielded results that conflict with the official investigation's findings. According to the leader of the investigation, residue on the hull of the ship that was claimed to have been aluminum oxide, which is a byproduct of explosions such as that of a torpedo, had a far higher ratio of oxygen to aluminum, leading the researchers to conclude that "we cannot say that the substance adhering to the Cheonan was the explosion byproduct of aluminum oxide."[90]

A report published online by Nature on 8 July 2010 noted several instances of groups or individuals disagreeing with the official report.[28]


South Korea

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Orders were given to the military to concentrate on rescuing the survivors. In Seoul, police were put on alert. At the time, a spokesman for the South Korean military stated that there was no evidence that North Korea had been involved in the incident.[22] A large group of relatives of the missing sailors protested outside the navy base at Pyeongtaek over the lack of information provided to them.[33] On 28 March relatives were taken to the site of the sunken vessel. Some relatives stated that survivors had claimed that the Cheonan had been in a poor state of repair.[24] The Korean media have raised the issue of why the sister ship Sokcho, which was operating nearby, did not come to the rescue of the sinking ship but instead fired shots at radar images which were later confirmed to be migratory birds.[91]

On 5 April 2010, President Lee Myung-bak visited Baengnyeong Island. He reiterated that it was risky to speculate over the cause, and the joint military and civilian investigation team would determine the cause. He said, "We have to find the cause in a way that satisfies not only our people but also the international community".[92] The president of South Korea has mourned the victims and said that he will respond "resolutely" to the sinking without yet laying blame for its cause.[93]

On 24 May Lee Myung-bak said the South would "resort to measures of self-defense in case of further military provocation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." He also supported readopting the official description of the North as the "main enemy."[94]

South Korea pursued measures from the United Nations Security Council after the incident, although the language used in the country's statements towards such measures became progressively weaker. In announcements made soon after the sinking, the government said that any draft presented by South Korea would explicitly state that North Korea was responsible for the incident, but by early July, the language had been reduced to only referring to "those responsible," in response to concerns from Russia.[95]


Since the incident, the South Korean government has been reluctant to engage in further diplomacy with North Korea over disputes such as North Korea's nuclear weapons program. In response to a request by China, in April 2011 South Korea agreed to talks, but South Korean government officials commented that an apology from North Korea for the sinking would probably be necessary to facilitate any significant progress in the dialogues.[96]


On 2 May it was reported that South Korea's naval minister vowed "retaliation" against those responsible.[97] Admiral Kim Sung-chan, at a publicly televised funeral for the Cheonan's dead crew members in Pyeongtaek, stated that, "We will not sit back and watch whoever caused this pain for our people. We will hunt them down and make them pay a bigger price."[98]

On 4 May President Lee proposed "extensive reformations" for the South Korean military regarding the sinking incident.[99] After the official report was released South Korea has said that it will take strong countermeasures against the North.[100]


On 24 May 2010, South Korea announced it would stop nearly all its trade with North Korea as a result of the official report blaming North Korea for the sinking. South Korea also announced it would prohibit North Korean vessels from using its shipping channels.[101] According to the New York Times, the trade embargoes were "the most serious action" South Korea could take short of military action.[102] The United States openly supported South Korea's decision.[103] The embargo is expected to cost the North Korean economy roughly $200 million a year.[104] The decision to cease trade was followed up with the United States and South Korea announcing they would conduct joint naval exercises in response to the sinking.[105]

Psychological warfare

The South Korean military announced that it would resume psychological warfare directed at North Korea. This would include both loudspeaker and FM radio propaganda broadcasts across the DMZ. Meanwhile, a commander in the North Korean People’s Army stated, “If South Korea establishes new psychological warfare services, we will fire against them in order to eliminate them,” according to a report carried by the Chosun Central News Agency (KCNA).[106]

South Korea began propaganda broadcasts into North Korea by radio on 25 May. North Korea responded by putting its troops on high alert, and severed most remaining ties and communications with South Korea in response to what it called a "smear campaign" by Seoul.[107] South Korean military propaganda FM broadcasts were resumed at 18:00 (local time) starting with the song "HuH" by K-pop band 4minute.[108]

As part of the propaganda broadcasts, South Korea reinstalled loudspeakers at eleven places along the DMZ. There was originally a plan to also use electronic signs, although due to cost, the plan was reportedly being reconsidered. On 13 June, South Korean media announced that the South Korean Defense Minister, Kim Tae-young, had said that anti-North Korea broadcasts were planned to resume after the UN Security Council took action against North Korea in response to the sinking of the Cheonan.[109]

Suppressing internal dissent

Discourse over the events leading to the sinking of the Cheonan was tightly controlled by the South Korean government in the months after the incident. On 8 May 2010, a former senior presidential secretary who served under Roh Moo-hyun, Park Seon-won,[110] was charged with libel by South Korea's Defense Minister, Kim Tae-young, over comments he made during a 22 April interview on MBC radio asking for greater disclosure from the military and government. Park Seon-won's response to the charge was: "I asked for the disclosure of information for a transparent and impartial investigation into the cause of the Cheonan sinking;" he added that "the libel suit seeks to silence public suspicion over the incident."[111] South Korea's Minister of Public Administration and Security, Maeng Hyung-kyu, announced on 20 May 2010 that the government was stepping up efforts to prosecute people who spread "groundless rumors" over the internet: "Anyone who makes false reports or articles about the incident could seriously damage national security. We will not let these be the basis of any risks the nation faces." Moreover, he announced the government would step up efforts to prevent "illegal gatherings" regarding the sinking of the Cheonan.[112]

A South Korean military oversight board, the Board of Inspection and Audit, has accused senior South Korean naval leaders of lying and hiding information. Said the board, "Military officers deliberately left out or distorted key information in their report to senior officials and the public because they wanted to avoid being held to account for being unprepared."[74]

North Korea

The North Korean Central News Agency released an official response to the investigation on 28 May 2010, asserting, amongst other things, that it is unbelievable that part of a torpedo doing so much damage to a ship would survive:

"Besides, the assertion that the screw shaft and engine remained undamaged and unchanged in shape is also a laughing shock. Even U.S. and British members of the international investigation team, which had blindly backed the south Korean regime in its 'investigation', were perplexed at the exhibit in a glass box." [75]

On 17 April 2010, it was reported that North Korea officially denied having had anything to do with the sinking, responding to what it referred to as "The puppet military warmongers, right-wing conservative politicians and the group of other traitors in South Korea".[113] An article from the official (North) Korean Central News Agency entitled "Military Commentator Denies Involvement in Ship Sinking" stated that the event was an accident.

... we have so far regarded the accident as a regretful accident that should not happen in the light of the fact that many missing persons and most of rescued members of the crew are fellow countrymen forced to live a tiresome life in the puppet army.[114]

On 21 May 2010, North Korea offered to send their own investigative team to review the evidence compiled by South Korea,[115] and the Hankyoreh quoted Kim Yeon-chul, professor of unification studies at Inje University, commenting on the offer: "It is unprecedented in the history of inter-Korean relations for North Korea to propose sending an investigation team in response to an issue that has been deemed a 'military provocation by North Korea,'"and thus "The Cheonan situation has entered a new phase."[116]

The North also warned of a wide range of hostile reactions to any move by the South to hold it accountable for the sinking.

If the South puppet group comes out with 'response' and 'retaliation', we will respond strongly with ruthless punishment including the total shutdown of North-South ties, abrogation of the North-South agreement on non-aggression and abolition of all North-South cooperation projects.[117]

On 24 May, new reports indicated Kim Jong-Il had ordered the North's forces to be ready for combat a week before.[118] The next day, North Korea released a list of measures that it will take in response to South Korea's sanctions. This would include the cutting of all ties and communications, except for the Kaesong industrial complex. They would revert back to a wartime footing in regard to South Korea and disallow any South Korean ships or aircraft to enter the territory of North Korea.[119]

On 27 May, North Korea announced that it would scrap an agreement aimed at preventing accidental naval clashes with South Korea. It also announced that any South Korean vessel found crossing the disputed maritime border would be immediately attacked.[120]

On 28 May, the official (North) KCNA stated that "it is the United States that is behind the case of Cheonan. The investigation was steered by the U.S. from its very outset." It also accused the United States of manipulating the investigation and named the administration of US President Barack Obama directly of using the case for "escalating instability in the Asia-Pacific region, containing big powers and emerging unchallenged in the region."[121]

On 29 May, North Korea warned the United Nations to be wary of evidence presented in the international investigation, likening the case to the claims of weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. used to justify its war against Iraq in 2003 and stated that "the U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks it can occupy the Korean Peninsula just as it did Iraq with sheer lies." The North Korea foreign minister warned the United Nations Security Council of risks of being “misused”. It also accused the U.S. of joining South Korea in putting "China into an awkward position and keep hold on Japan and South Korea as its servants.” High ranking North Korean military officials denounced the international investigation and said the North does not have the type of submarines that supposedly carried out the attack. They also dismissed claims regarding writings on the torpedo and clarified that "when we put serial numbers on weapons, we engrave them with machines." South Korea’s Yonhap News quoted South Korean officials as saying the North has about 10 of the Yeono class submarines.[82]


When the official report on the sinking was released on 20 May there was widespread international condemnation of the North's actions. China was one of few exceptions, simply terming the incident "unfortunate" and "urged stability on the peninsula". This was speculated to be China's concern for instability in the Korean peninsula.[100]

On 14 June 2010, South Korea presented the results of its investigation to United Nations Security Council members.[1][122] In a subsequent meeting with council members North Korea stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.[123] On the 9 July 2010 the United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.[9][124] China had resisted U.S. calls for a tougher line against North Korea.[125]

See also


  1. ^ a b c Park In-kook (4 June 2010), "Letter dated 4 June 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council", United Nations Security Council, S/2010/281,, retrieved 11 July 2010 
  2. ^ a b c "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS Cheonan - report statement". Ministry of National Defense R.O.K.. 20 May 2010. News item No 592. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  3. ^ a b "Results Confirm North Korea Sank Cheonan". Daily NK. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  4. ^ Barrowclough, Anne (May 20, 2010). "‘All out war’ threatened over North Korea attack on warship Cheonan". London: Times Online. Retrieved 2010-05-25. 
  5. ^ a b "How Did N. Korea Sink The Cheonan?". Chosun Ilbo. May 21, 2010. Retrieved May 21, 2010. 
  6. ^ "Press Conference on Situation in Korean Peninsula: DPRK Permanent Representative to the United Nations Sin Son Ho". Department of Public Information (United Nations). 15 June 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010. 
  7. ^ a b Yoichi Shimatsu, (27 May 2010). "Did an American Mine Sink South Korean Ship?". New America Media. Retrieved 5 June 2010. 
  8. ^ a b "Russian Navy Expert Team’s analysis on the Cheonan incident". The Hankyoreh. 27 July 2010. Retrieved 28 July 2010. 
  9. ^ a b "Presidential Statement: Attack on Republic of Korea Naval Ship ‘Cheonan’". United Nations Security Council (United Nations). 9 July 2010. S/PRST/2010/13. Retrieved 11 July 2010. 
  10. ^ Ryoo, Moo Bong. (2009). "The Korean Armistice and the Islands," p. 13 (at PDF-p. 21). Strategy research project at the U.S. Army War College; retrieved 26 Nov 2010.
  11. ^ "Factbox: What is the Korean Northern Limit Line?" Reuters (UK). November 23, 2010; retrieved 26 Nov 2010.
  12. ^ Van Dyke, Jon et al. "The North/South Korea Boundary Dispute in the Yellow (West) Sea," Marine Policy 27 (2003), 143-158; note that "Inter-Korean MDL" is cited because it comes from an academic source and the writers were particular enough to include in quotes as we present it. The broader point is that the maritime demarcation line here is NOT a formal extension of the Military Demarcation Line; compare "NLL—Controversial Sea Border Between S.Korea, DPRK, " People's Daily (PRC), November 21, 2002; retrieved 22 Dec 2010
  13. ^ "Northern Limit Line (NLL) West Sea Naval Engagements". Retrieved March 31, 2010. 
  14. ^ a b c "Historian Bruce Cumings: US Stance on Korea Ignores Tensions Rooted in 65-Year-Old Conflict; North Korea Sinking Could Be Response to November ’09 South Korea Attack". Democracy Now!. 27 May 2010. Retrieved 26 November 2010. 
  15. ^ "Statement of General Walter L. Sharp, commander, United Nations command; commander, Republic of Korea-United States combined forces command; and commander, United States forces Korea, before the House Appropriations Committee, MILCON/Veterans Affairs subcommittee, 24 March 2010". Committee on Appropriation, US House of Representatives. 24 March 2010. Retrieved 28 November 2010. 
  16. ^ Pauline Jelinek (June 5, 2010). "Sub attack was near US-SKorea drill". Associated Press (ABC News). Retrieved December 3, 2010. 
  17. ^ Lance Cpl. Claudio A. Martinez (March 11, 2010). "Exercises Key Resolve/Foal Eagle 2010 kick off". U.S. Marine Corp. Retrieved May 26, 2010. 
  18. ^ Kim Myong Chol (May 5, 2010). "Pyongyang sees US role in Cheonan sinking". Asia Times Online. Retrieved May 26, 2010. 
  19. ^ "Report: South Korean navy ship sinks". CNN. March 27, 2010. Retrieved 26 March 2010. 
  20. ^ "Chronology of the Cheonan Sinking". Korea Times. April 29, 2010. Retrieved May 25, 2010. 
  21. ^ a b c d "Investigation Activities on the Sinking of ROKS "Cheonan" - investigation video". Ministry of National Defense R.O.K.. 20 May 2010. Linked from news item No 592. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  22. ^ a b "South Korean navy ship sinks near sea border with North". BBC. 26 March 2010. Retrieved March 26, 2010. 
  23. ^ a b "Poor weather halts search of South Korea sunken warship". BBC. 31 March 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2010. 
  24. ^ a b Mark TranSi-Young Lee and Hyung-Jin Kim (28 March 2010). "Angry families visit site of sunken SKorean ship". Associated Press. Retrieved 28 March 2010. 
  25. ^ Kim Sengupta (March 27, 2010). "Warship mystery raises Korean tensions". London: The Independent. 
  26. ^ a b "South Korea urges restraint over sunken warship". BBC News. April 1, 2010. 
  27. ^
  28. ^ a b "Controversy over South Korea's sunken ship". Nature. 8 July 2010. Retrieved 9 July 2010. 
  29. ^ Gregg, Donald P. (August 31, 2010). "Testing North Korean Waters". The New York Times. 
  30. ^ Tania Branigan and Caroline Davies (March 26, 2010). "South Korean naval ship sinks in disputed area after 'explosion'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved March 30, 2010. 
  31. ^ a b Evan Ramstad (March 29, 2010). "Divers Reach South Korean Wreckage". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 9, 2010. 
  32. ^ Crilly, Rob (March 26, 2010). "South Korea investigates whether North involved in ship sinking". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 26 March 2010. 
  33. ^ a b "Hopes fading for South Korea sailors". BBC News. March 27, 2010. Retrieved 27 March 2010. 
  34. ^ Lee, Tae-hoon (28 March 2010). "More Questions Raised Than Answered Over Sunken Ship". The Korea Times. Retrieved 28 March 2010. 
  35. ^ South Korea rules out navy ship sunk by North Korea, Reuters, Jo Yonghak, 27 March 2010
  36. ^ a b "Sunken section of South Korean naval vessel found". BBC News. March 29, 2010. Retrieved 29 March 2010. 
  37. ^ a b "South Koreans hold out hope for sailors missing after ship explosion". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 3 April 2010. 
  38. ^ "Diver dies at South Korean warship rescue site". BBC News. 30 March 2010. Retrieved 30 March 2010. 
  39. ^ a b c Kwang-Tae Kim (3 April 2010). "SKorea stops underwater search for missing sailors". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2010-04-03. 
  40. ^ "Nine missing as S Korean boat sinks in warship search". BBC News Online. 3 April 2010. Retrieved 3 April 2010. 
  41. ^ a b "Stern of South Korea naval ship lifted from sea bed". BBC News. 15 April 2010. Retrieved 15 April 2010. 
  42. ^ Lee, Tae-hoon (23 April 2010). "Front Half of Cheonan to Be Raised Today". Retrieved 25 May 2010. 
  43. ^ "Asia-Pacific — Funeral held for S Korean sailors". Al Jazeera English. April 29, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  44. ^ "South Korea says torpedo may have sunk navy ship". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 April 2010. [dead link]
  45. ^ "N. Korean Submarine 'Left Base Before the Cheonan Sank'". The Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 3 April 2010. 
  46. ^ "Cheonan Captain 'Reported Attack'". The Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 3 April 2010. 
  47. ^ "South Korea urges restraint over sunken warship". BBC. 1 April 2010. Retrieved April 2, 2010. 
  48. ^ a b The Chosun Ilbo, "Suspicion Of N. Korean Hand In Sinking Mounts", April 2, 2010.
  49. ^ "Dr. Jeom Paik, MarineTalk Advisory Board". MarineTalk. Retrieved July 8, 2010. 
  50. ^ Kim Jae-Hwan (1 April 2010). "South Korea hunts for clues to warship disaster". AFP. Retrieved April 2, 2010. 
  51. ^ "Lawmaker Points to Signs Linking N. Korean Sub to Shipwreck". The Chosun Ilbo. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 7 April 2010. 
  52. ^ "NIS says N. Korean attack on Cheonan impossible sans Kim Jong-il approval". Hank Yoreh. 7 April 2010. Retrieved April 7, 2010. 
  53. ^ Sang-Hun, Choe (25 April 2010). "South Korea Cites Torpedo Attack in Ship Sinking". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2010. 
  54. ^ a b c "Questions raised following Cheonan announcement". The Hankyoreh. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 8 July 2010. 
  55. ^ "INSIDE JoongAng Daily". April 7, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  56. ^ (AFP) – Apr 12, 2010 (April 12, 2010). "AFP: Australians to join probe into S.Korea warship sinking". Google. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  57. ^ "Canadian Naval Expertise to Assist in Multinational Investigation into the Cheonan Sinking". Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. May 16, 2010. Retrieved May 16, 2010. 
  58. ^ Jung Sung-ki (19 April 2010). "N. Korean Submarines Pose Grave Threat to Security". Seoul: Korea Times. Retrieved April 25, 2010. 
  59. ^ "S. Korea confirms detection of explosive chemical in sunken warship". Xinhua. 10 May 2010. 
  60. ^ Pomfret, John; Harden, Blaine (19 May 2010). "South Korea to officially blame North Korea for March torpedo attack on warship". Washington Post. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  61. ^ "Cheonan Analysis Reveals Non-Contact Cause". Daily NK. April 26, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  62. ^ Excerpts: South Korea ship sinking report, BBC, 20-05-2010
  63. ^ Explosives from torpedo found on sunken ship, by Lee Tae-hoon Korea Times, 7 May 2010
  64. ^ "Probe IDs torpedo that sunk Cheonan: sources". JoongAng Daily. 20 May 2010. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  65. ^ "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS Cheonan - Press Summary". The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group (Ministry of National Defense R.O.K. / BBC). 20 May 2010. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  66. ^ Adam Brookes (May 20, 2010). "'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship — report". BBC News. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  67. ^ "World News Australia — North Korea 'sank South Korean ship'".'sank-South-Korean-ship'. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  68. ^ "North Korea denies sinking warship; South Korea vows strong response". CNN. May 20, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  69. ^ Foster, Peter; Moore, Malcolm (20 May 2010). "North Korea condemned by world powers over torpedo attack". London: The Telegraph. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
  70. ^ a b "Joint Investigation Report On the Attack Against the ROKS Ship Cheonan", Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of Korea, September 2010, ISBN 978-89-7677-711-9,, retrieved 4 December 2010 
  71. ^ Kim Deok-hyun (29 June 2010). "Investigators admit using wrong blueprint to show N. Korean torpedo that attacked Cheonan". Yonhap. Retrieved 2 August 2010. 
  72. ^ ""Smoking Gun" Briefing Slides". South Korean Ministry of Defense. 20 May 2010. Retrieved 31 July 2010.  (PDF version of partial slide set)
  73. ^ a b c Powell, Bill (13 August 2010). "South Korea's Case for How the Cheonan Sank". Time.,8599,2010455,00.html. Retrieved 15 August 2010. 
  74. ^ a b c Barbara Demick and John M. Glionna (July 23, 2010). "Doubts surface on North Korea's role in ship sinking". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 24, 2010. 
  75. ^ a b "Military Commentator on Truth behind "Story of Attack by North"". Korea News Service. Retrieved 28 May 2010. 
  76. ^ "Seoul reaffirms N. Korea’s torpedo attack in final report". Korea Times. 13 September 2010. Retrieved 14 September 2010. 
  77. ^
  78. ^
  79. ^ "Differentiating Truth From Fiction". JoongAng Daily. 23 March 2011. 
  80. ^ S. C. Shin (May 26, 2010). "Opinion about Accident of PCC-772". Seoprise. Retrieved 8 July 2010.  (HTML version)
  81. ^ Ser Myo-ja (20 May 2010). "Probe member summoned on false rumor allegations". JoongAng Daily. Retrieved 8 July 2010. 
  82. ^ a b South Korea Faces Domestic Skeptics Over Evidence Against North, by Ben Richardson and Saeromi Shin, Bloomberg News, 30-05-2010
  83. ^ . 26 May 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2010. 
  84. ^ "Russian experts inspect to probe Cheonan issue at home". RIA Novosti. 8 June 2010. Retrieved 23 July 2010. 
  85. ^ Lee Yeong-in (10 July 2010). "Government protests Russia’s Conflicting Cheonan findings". The Hankyoreh. Retrieved 23 July 2010. 
  86. ^ Vladimir Radyuhin (9 June 2010). "Russian probe undercuts Cheonan sinking theory". The Hindu. Retrieved 23 July 2010. 
  87. ^ "Russia’s Cheonan investigation suspects that the sinking Cheonan ship was caused by a mine in water". The Hankyoreh. 27 July 2010. Retrieved 28 July 2010. 
  88. ^ "Lee administration responds to Russian investigation report". The Hankyoreh. 28 July 2010. Retrieved 28 July 2010. 
  89. ^ Yonhap, "Moscow Not To Make Public Probe Outcome On Cheonan's Sinking: Amb. Churkin", August 5, 2010.
  90. ^ "Scientists question Cheonan investigation findings". The Hankyoreh. 28 June 2010. Retrieved 29 June 2010. 
  91. ^ "Military Under Fire – Questions Grow Over Crisis Management Capability". Seoul: Korea Times. 1 April 2010. Retrieved April 2, 2010. 
  92. ^ Na Jeong-ju (5 April 2010). "Lee Warns Against Speculation Over Cheonan". Seoul: Korea Times. Retrieved April 5, 2010. 
  93. ^ "South Korea mourns victims of ship sinking". BBC News. April 26, 2010. 
  94. ^
  95. ^ "Requested Security Council Cheonan measures weaken considerably". The Hankyoreh. 2 July 2010. Retrieved 2 July 2010. 
  96. ^ The Korea Herald, "Seoul Insists On N. Korea Apology Before Dialogue", 18 April 2011; Yonhap, "Seoul Renews Demand For N. Korea's Responsible Steps Over Deadly Attacks", 18 April 2011.
  97. ^ "S. Korea minister vows retaliation over warship sinking". Hindustan Times. May 2, 2010. Retrieved May 2, 2010. 
  98. ^ The Korea Herald, "Navy Chief Vows Revenge For Cheonan", 30 April 2010.
  99. ^ 김 (Kim), 대우 (Dae-u) (May 4, 2010). ""작전,무기,군대조직,문화도 다바꿔라" 軍 전방위 개혁 예고 ["Change All Of Plans, Weapons, Organization, Culture" Military Announces Omni-directional Reform]" (in Korean). Herald Economics. Retrieved May 5, 2010. 
  100. ^ a b "North Korea accused of sinking ship". 2010-05-20. Retrieved 2010-05-20. 
  101. ^ Choe Sang-Hun (24 May 2010). "South Korea cuts trade ties with North over sinking". The Age (Melbourne). Retrieved 24 May 2010. 
  102. ^ Choe Sang-Hun; Shanker, Thom (24 May 2010). "Pentagon and U.N. Chief Put New Pressure on N. Korea". New York Times. Retrieved 24 May 2010. 
  103. ^ Lewis, Leo (24 May 2010). "South Korea bans all trade with North over Cheonan attack". The Times (London). Retrieved 24 May 2010. 
  104. ^ "US backs South Korea in punishing North Korea - Yahoo! News". 2010-03-26. Retrieved 2010-05-25. [dead link]
  105. ^ "US to conduct naval training exercises with S Korea after attack". BBC News (British Broadcasting Corporation). 24 May 2010. Retrieved 24 May 2010. 
  106. ^ Kim So Yeol (24 May 2010). "Psychological Warfare Will Resume". Daily NK. Retrieved 24 May 2010. 
  107. ^ [1][dead link]
  108. ^
  109. ^ "S. Korea reconsiders installing electronic signboards against N. Korea". Yonhap. 13 June 2010. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  110. ^ Korean newspapers have romanized his name as Park Seon-won; however, papers he published while as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute indicate he romanizes his name as Sun-won Park.
  111. ^ "Ex-Pres. Secretary Sued for Spreading Cheonan Rumors". May 8, 2010. Retrieved May 25, 2010. 
  112. ^ "Gov't warns against 'groundless rumors'". May 20, 2010. Retrieved May 25, 2010. 
  113. ^ Miyoung Kim (April 17, 2010). "North Korea denies it sank South's navy ship". Reuters. Retrieved May 20, 2010. 
  114. ^ "Military Commentator Denies Involvement in Ship Sinking ", Korean Central News Agency. April 17, 2010. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
  115. ^ The Hankyoreh, "N. Korea’s Reinvestigation Proposal Alters Cheonan Situation", May 21, 2010.
  116. ^ N. Korea's reinvestigation proposal alters Cheonan situation
  117. ^ Miyoung Kim (2010-05-21). "North Korea declares phase of war with south". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-05-22. 
  118. ^ "Asia-Pacific - S Korea resumes border broadcasts". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved 2010-05-25. 
  119. ^ Thatcher, Jonathan (2010-05-25). "Text from North Korea statement". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-05-26. 
  120. ^ BBC (May 27, 2010). "North Korea scraps South Korea military safeguard pact". BBC. Retrieved 2010-05-27. 
  121. ^ DPRK accuses U.S. of cooking up, manipulating "Cheonan case", by Xiong Tong, Xinhua News Agency, 28-05-2010
  122. ^ "North Korea - Developments at the UN". Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations. July 2010. Retrieved 11 July 2010. 
  123. ^ Sin Son Ho (8 June 2010), "Letter dated 8 June 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council", United Nations Security Council, S/2010/294,, retrieved 11 July 2010 
  124. ^ Harvey Morris (9 July 2010). "North Korea escapes blame over ship sinking". Financial Times. Retrieved 11 July 2010. 
  125. ^ Andrew Jacobs and David E. Sanger (29 June 2010). "China Returns U.S. Criticism Over Sinking of Korean Ship". New York Times. Retrieved 11 July 2010. 


External links

Coordinates: 37°55′45″N 124°36′02″E / 37.92917°N 124.60056°E / 37.92917; 124.60056

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать реферат

Look at other dictionaries:

  • ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) — This article is about the Korean naval ship. For the article about the sinking of this ship, see ROKS Cheonan sinking …   Wikipedia

  • Cheonan — This article is about the city of Cheonan in South Korea. For the naval ship, see ROKS Cheonan (PCC 772). For the article about the sinking of this ship, see ROKS Cheonan sinking. Cheonan 천안 天安   Municipal City  … …   Wikipedia

  • Cheonan (PCC-772) — Geschichte Typ Korvette Namensgeber Stadt Cheonan Bauwerft Korea Tacoma Marine Industries Ltd. Stapellauf Januar 1989 …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • ROKS Choi Young (DDH-981) — Career …   Wikipedia

  • Dokdo class amphibious assault ship — ROKS Dokdo (LPH 6111) moored at Busan in August 2009. Class overview Name: Dokdo Class LPH Builders …   Wikipedia

  • Korean maritime border incidents — Part of Division of Korea Incidents have occurred in waters south of the Northern Limit Line, shown in red s …   Wikipedia

  • North Korea–United States relations — North Korea …   Wikipedia

  • North Korea–South Korea relations — North Korea …   Wikipedia

  • Korean People's Navy — Korean People s Army Naval Force 조선인민군 해군 Components Korean People s Navy History History of the Korean People s Navy …   Wikipedia

  • Сверхмалая подводная лодка — 80 мини субмарин типа D («Koryu») в сухом доке Курэ, 19 октября 1945 г …   Википедия

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”