Subscribe to the Journal:

is a reader-supported journal

Tax deductible Contributions welcome via Pay Pal or credit card. If you would like to support the Journal, please do so here. The Asia-Pacific Journal is available free to all. Your support allows us to improve our service in a new era of conflict in the Asia-Pacific.
$25.00 $50.00 $100.00

Join Us:JapanFocus Twitter page  APJ Facebook Page  

Display Your BOOK, FILM, OR EVENT here

 Peace  Philosophy  Centre

Dialogue and learning for creating a peaceful, sustainable world.



Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
Click a cover to order.
The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
In-depth critical analysis of the forces shaping the Asia-Pacific...and the world.

Who Sank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? A New Stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations  韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層  田中宇 •Japanese original available

Sakai Tanaka

Who Sank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? A New Stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations The original Japanese text is available here

Tanaka Sakai

Translated by Kyoko Selden

Introduction [Updated May 24, 2010]

At 9:22 on the night of March 26, the 1,200 ton ROK Navy corvette Cheonan was on patrol when it was severed in two and sank in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, a contested area twenty kilometers from North Korea, the closest point of South Korean territory to the North and to Pyongyang. Forty-six crew members died and 58 of the 104 member crew were rescued. It was the worst ROK naval disaster since 1974 when a navy landing ship capsized killing 159 sailors.

Nearly two months later, the elaborate political choreography of explanation and blame for the disaster continues on the part of North and South Korea, China and the United States.  The stakes are large: ranging from an easing of tensions on the Korean peninsula to a new stage of fighting in the Korean War. With polls in early May showing that 80 percent of ROK citizens believe that the sinking was caused by North Korean attack, tensions have remained high. While segments of the US, European and Japanese mainstream press have exercised caution in jumping to the conclusion that a DPRK ship had attacked the Cheonan, the international media have shown no interest in following the leads opened by South Korean media and citizen researchers. The article that follows does not resolve the case by any means. But it exposes anomalies in official accounts and invites scrutiny of a range of intriguing issues that call for further investigation.

An ROK-sponsored investigation, with technical support from the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden, Canada and Australia, led to a May 20 ROK government announcement that the submarine was sunk by a DPRK torpedo. Case closed. What is evident, however, is that important issues have been ignored or suppressed by the US and South Korean authorities.

In the article that follows, independent journalist Tanaka Sakai hypothesizes about what may have happened on the night of March 26 and after. Drawing on ROK TV and press reports and photographs, some of which were subsequently suppressed, Tanaka places at center stage a range of factors, some fully documented, others speculative, that have been missing, distorted, or silenced in US and ROK narratives: they include the fact and location of the US-ROK joint military exercise that was in progress at the time of the incident and the possibility that the Cheonan was sunk by friendly fire. Tanaka presents evidence suggesting the possibility that a US nuclear submarine was stationed off Byaengnyong Island and that a US vessel may have been sunk during the incident. He also considers anomalies in the role of US ships in the salvage and rescue operations that followed, including the death of an ROK diver in the attempt to recover that vessel.

At stake are issues that could rock the ROK government on the eve of elections, and could impinge on the US-ROK military relationship as the US moves to transfer authority over command to ROK forces by 2012, and to expand the role of China in the geopolitics of the region. There are implications for tensions between North Korea and the US/ROK on the one hand, and for the permanent stationing of US nuclear, and nuclear-armed, submarines in South Korean waters. Above all, there is the possibility that renewed war may be imminent in the Korean peninsula at a time when the ROK has cut off all trade with the North and is moving toward demanding the imposition of UN sanctions.

Tanaka's analysis, published on May 7, was among the earliest attempts to engage important anomolies in early ROK official accounts. We publish the full original contribution while noting that some of its suppositions were subsequently disproved. This includes the hypothesis that the USS Columbia was sunk, while leaving open the possibility of the loss of anothr US ship. The USS Columbia subsequently returned to Hawaii. Core issues that Tanaka raised, however, remain unresolved and ignored in media accounts. In locating the incident in the context of the US-ROK military exercise Foal Eagle, held provocatively close to North Korea, the author invites readers to consider the plausibility that North Korea's primitive ships could have sunk the radar- and sonar-equipped Cheonan and escaped to North Korea at a moment of maximum ROK-US readiness. And, if it did, that the ROK would remain silent about the event in the immediate aftermath. He reflects on possible motives for an attack by North Korea, but also consider the attractions of claims of a North Korea attack for the ruling ROK party interested in undermining the credibility of the North and exciting nationalist passions among voters on the eve of a major election. These are but a few of the issues raised in the article that follows, and in the investigations of other researchers appended to this article below.

Mark Selden


On 26 March, 2010 near Baengnyeong Island (White Wing, also known as Baekreong) to the South of the northern limit line, the maritime demarcation line between South and North Korea, South Korea’s large patrol boat Cheonan (Heaven’s Peace) exploded and sank. Already, more than one month after the accident, the cause of the sinking has not been confirmed. In early April, the South Korean government announced that either a torpedo struck or an underwater mine exploded, sinking the ship, indicating that it was not destroyed by an explosion or accident inside the boat but by an external cause.

The stern of the Cheonan docked on a barge off Baengnyeong Island on 7 May, 2010. Lee Jung-hoon.

However, it remains an enigma as to who fired or set off a torpedo or underwater mine. The South Korean right, claiming that a North Korean semi-submersible ship fired a torpedo, demands that the South Korean government launch a revenge attack on the North. The left and pacifists in the South suggest that the warship may have touched off an underwater mine installed in the 1970s by the South Korean military to prevent North Korean infiltration and still left there.

136 underwater mines were installed in response to the tensions in the Yellow Sea and, ten years later, fewer than ten percent had been removed

Baengnyeong Island is only 20 kilometers from North Korea in an area that the North claims as its maritime territory, except for the South Korean territorial sea around the island.  At present there are two demarcation lines on the sea. South Korea and the US (UN) claim that the Northern Limit Line (NLL), which runs just north of Baengnyeong Island, is the demarcation line between North and South. However, since 1999, North Korea has claimed that the Military Demarcation Line further south is the border between North and South.  About 5,000 South Koreans live on Baengnyeong Island and regular ferries link it from Inchon. In the reconciliation between North and South in the year 2000, North Korea recognized this ferry route and the sea around the island as an area where South Korean and American boats can navigate freely. At the same time, North Korea has regarded American and South Korean boats entering the sea area beyond that as violating the economic zone of North Korea.

Map of Baengnyeong Island (1)

Map of Baengnyeong Island (2)

In the vicinity of Baengnyeong Island South Korea constantly confronts the North Korean military. The Cheonan was a patrol boat whose mission was to survey with radar and sonar the enemy’s submarines, torpedoes, and aircraft, and to attack. If North Korean submarines and torpedoes were approaching, the Cheonan should have been able to sense it quickly and take measures to counterattack or evade. Moreover, on the day the Cheonan sank, US and ROK military exercises were under way, so it could be anticipated that North Korean submarines would move south to conduct surveillance. It is hard to imagine that the Cheonan sonar forces were not on alert.

South Korean military spokespersons told the media immediately after the incident that the probability of sensing torpedoes two kilometers away with sonar was over 70 percent. Later the probability was reduced to over 50 percent because the water is only 30 meters deep. This reduction, I believe, is for the purpose of theorizing North Korean responsibility for the attack.

The patrol boat sinking; doubling the area of the search

A US Submarine that sank by the Number 3 Buoy

The sinking of the Cheonan remains unsolved. But around the time of this incident another sinking occurred that has hardly been reported in Japan. Near the site of the sinking of the Cheonan, a colossal object, which appears to be a US submarine, was found to have sunk. An ROK underwater team searched for, and on April 7 South Korea’s KBS TV showed, a US helicopter carrying what seems to be the body of a US soldier. KBS is a public broadcasting station with the highest credibility in South Korea.

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, in the course of conducting an underwater search, a member of the special unit of the ROK Navy, UDT-SEAL (Underwater Demolition Team, Sea Air Land) Han Joo-ho, lost consciousness and later died. This was a secondary disaster. While collecting information on the death of Warrant Officer Han, KBS learned that his memorial took place neither near where the rear of the ship was found (the first buoy), nor near where the head of the ship was found (second buoy). Rather, it was six kilometers away near the third buoy, between the first and second buoy, that is, at a location that had nothing to do with the Cheonan sinking.

A map provided by KBS TV. The third buoy to the East of Baengnyeong Island is where the head of the Cheonan sank, and the rear of the Cheonan sank to the West.

The map of the search generally reported: two black dots to the South of Baengnyong are where the halves of Cheonan reportedly sank. The third buoy is not shown.

US and ROK troops at work searching the sea several hundred meters from the cliff of the island. The first and second buoys where the Cheonan sank are both separated from the island by about two kilometers, and are not right in front of the cliff as shown in this Yonhap News photo. This is likely to be the place of the third buoy where the US submarine sank. But there South Korean reports claim that this is the location of the search for the Cheonan survivors.

This site is the source of the maps and photo.

(When a boat is discovered on the sea bed, divers connect a buoy with a rope to the sunken boat, so that the location can be specified from above. After the explosion split the Cheonan in two, the two halves separated, drifting on the fast tide. They were discovered 6.5 kilometers apart.)

Warrant Officer Han, who dove at the third buoy, lost consciousness and later died. KBS, while investigating UDT-SEAL and other sources on the sea bed at the location of the third buoy, learned that something like a large submarine had sunk and that the interior of the submarine was quickly searched under US military jurisdiction.

The US military so rushed this search that it did not wait for decompressors necessary for underwater search to arrive before sending ROK troops underwater.  Although the safe duration of the time for diving is as short as fifteen minutes, the US military pushed ahead to make the Koreans search the complex interior of the boat so that even skilled UDT-SEAL personnel lost consciousness one after another. And in that situation, the accident involving Warrant Officer Han occurred. Some UDT-SEAL officers claimed that “US divers declined to carry out such a dangerous operation, so they made our ROK team do the work.”

A Suppressed KBS TV Scoop

ROK and US authorities did their best to hide the fact that a US submarine sank at about the same time as the Cheonan. The ROK authorities did not announce the sinking of the US submarine, nor did they call Warrant Officer Han’s death an accident which occurred while searching inside a US submarine. Instead, they announced that he died while searching for Cheonan survivors’ bodies. Warrant Officer Han was honored as a national hero.

South Korean honor guard bearing the coffin of Han Joo-ho

However, the memorial for Warrant Officer Han was performed not at the site of the Cheonan, but at the site of the sunk US submarine. US Ambassador Kathleen Stevens and Commander-in-Chief Walter Sharp of US forces in Korea attended. They praised Han and offered solatium to the bereaved family. The attendance by high US officials and monetary payments probably were for the purpose of suppressing anti-American sentiment that might blame the delayed search for Cheonan survivors caused by the precipitous US search for its own victims, resulting in Han falling victim.

An object like a corpse pulled up from the sea at the third buoy was taken away not by an ROK helicopter but by a US military helicopter. This too suggests that what sank at the third buoy was not an ROK ship but a US military boat.

The search and recovery of the Cheonan was given to a civilian company and the command of the operation was in the hands of a Korean barge. The search at the third buoy was conducted by a special ROK UDT-SEAL team and the latest ROK light-weight aircraft carrier, the Dokdo, served as the command center. What can be assumed from this disparity is that the US and ROK military prioritized the search for the American submarine at the third buoy over the search and recovery of the Cheonan. This is especially the case for the US military, which commands the ROK military. After the incident, the start of the search and recovery of the Cheonan was delayed, probably because US and ROK authorities prioritized the search for the US submarine.

KBS TV in the 9 o’clock news featured this under the title, “The Mysterious Third Buoy. Why?” Subsequently, a number of ROK newspapers and magazines reported on the incident. The ROK authorities vigorously criticized these reports and sued KBS for “false reporting” and maligning the government. After the trial, the KBS website had to stop displaying film and articles about the incident.

The Mysterious Third Buoy. Why?

A gag order was issued to the UDT-SEAL team. When it was found that the problem of the third buoy was not about the ROK authorities but about the US military, official pressure increased and KBS and other Korean media stopped reporting on the incident. As in Japan, the Korean media, which is subject to American authority, seems to share an implicit rule not to inquire into US military matters.

A Nuclear Submarine Armed with Nuclear Weapons was Underwater?

KBS, which reported on the existence of the third buoy, was criticized for filing a false report. Thereafter, the possibility that the Cheonan was attacked by an American submarine was regarded as a dangerous and groundless rumor, and was virtually suppressed in South Korea.

However, the suspicion that the Cheonan sank as a result of friendly fire surfaced within the South Korean media immediately after the event. On the day of the incident, ROK and US forces were conducting the joint military exercise Foal Eagle to the south of Byaengnyeong Island. According to a joint US-ROK announcement, the exercise was to have been completed on 18 March, but the actual exercise was prolonged to 30 April. On the day of the incident, the exercise was underway. After the incident, the US-ROK authorities made no mention of the fact that the joint military exercise was in progress. But the day after the incident, various ROK media and newspapers reported that the Cheonan might have been sunk by friendly fire during the military exercise. 

The Cheonan and the “suspicion” of inadvertent attack during the ROK-US Joint Military Exercise

In response to the report, ROK authorities acknowledged that the military exercise was in progress, but stated that it was not taking place near Byaengnyeong. Rather, it was off the coast of Taeon, Chungchong Namdo, which is about 100 kilometers to the south of Byaengnyeong. ROK authorities announced that the Cheonan did not participate in the military exercise. But a high-speed ship can reach Byaengnyeong from Taeon in two to three hours. Since last year, the DPRK has been criticizing the US and ROK for threatening activity in approaching its maritime area during ROK-US joint military exercises. This time, too, US and ROK ships may have gone north close to Byaengnyeong island. If the Cheonan had sunk during the exercise, the ROK authorities, in order to avoid criticism from North Korea, would not make such an announcement. Although the authorities announced that the Cheonan did not participate in the exercise, it is possible that the announcement deviates from the fact.

The Jaju Minbo of the ROK (left wing) analysed the KBS News report. What is interesting is the analysis of the geographical environment of the third buoy where the submarine sank. The American submarine sank in the offing several hundred meters off the coast near cliffs that are called Yongteurim Rocks, on the southern side of Byaengnyeong. Around Byaengnyeong Island there are many shoals where submarines can run aground while underwater, but the sea in front of the cliffs is deep. There, the northern and eastern sides are divided by land and if North Koreans tried to watch Byaengnyeong from their territory, they would not be able to locate a US submarine on the south side of the island. North Korea recognizes the sea area around Byaengnyeong as ROK territory. A boat moving underwater near the island would not be attacked by the North Korean military, making this a safe hiding place for a US submarine.

On the basis of this kind of geographical information, novelist Soo Hyon-o, a specialist in military affairs, told the Jaju Minbo: “Perhaps the American submarine adopted a posture of near war. Meaning that it can send a missile toward North Korea during an emergency while underwater in the sea near Byaengnyeong Island. Using the sea around the rocks as a base, it can intercept DPRK communications from the opposite shore of the island.”

Jaju Minbo: “Did the North Hit and Completely Sink a US Submarine?”

Byaengnyeong Island is the nearest point in South Korea to Pyongyang . . . about 170 kilometers. For the US-ROK military, it is the best place to counterattack in the event of emergency, and it is also well placed for radio interception. If the US places a submarine near Byaengnyeong Island and it stays for a long time, in the event of a North Korean attack on Seoul, the submarine can fire a missile within minutes.

A submarine employed for such an operation is undoubtedly an atomic submarine, which can stay under water for one month. An atomic submarine extracts oxygen using electric power generated by the atomic reactor on the boat by electrolysis of sea water. Unlike a diesel submarine, such a boat does not have to surface at all. Many US atomic submarines can be loaded with nuclear missiles. In order to counter North Korea, which claims to be armed with nuclear weapons, the US military might maintain a nuclear-armed submarine at all times near Byaengnyeong Island, the closest point to North Korea.

If the US and ROK military installed a missile aimed at North Korea on Byaengnyeong Island, they would be fiercely criticized by North Korea, which would agitate ROK citizens who regard citizens of the North as their brethren, necessitating removal of such a missile. However, a US submarine loaded with atomic missiles underwater near the island would have the same effect as a land-based missile at a time of emergency. It would not be known by the North, nor would there be a need to inform ROK citizens about it. Thought about in this way, the possibility of a US submarine armed with nuclear weapons being near Byaengnyeong Island is almost greater than its not being there.

Many US atomic submarines have more than 100 crew members. They operate the submarine by night and day shifts, so the crew is large. If a US submarine sank under the third buoy, there could have been many victims, their number comparable to those who died in the Cheonan incident. There is also the fear of radioactivity leakage. What the US military hastened to recover from the sunken submarine could have been a nuclear warhead. That is why the UDT-SEAL team of the ROK military was made to conduct the search hastily. Warrant Officer Han’s death on duty occurred in the process.

The sinking of the Cheonan was widely reported immediately, but the sinking of the American submarine was concealed by the US government, and the ROK authorities were made to assist in the concealment. The reason for concealing the sunken submarine is probably to prevent North Korea and ROK citizens from knowing that a US submarine was underwater near Byaengnyeong Island for the purpose of attacking North Korea in time of crisis. If that fact became known, the North would be angry and attempt some form of retaliation, and anti-US sentiment among ROK citizens would be fanned. But, because KBS and others reported on the sinking of the US submarine, even though handled as an error, the North can be presumed to have grasped the steps of this event fairly well.

When military secrets were exposed by the sinking of the Cheonan, the military started to take measures

Mistaking the American Submarine for a North Korean Submarine?

The discussion so far has not come to the most important question: why did the Cheonan and the American submarine sink? I will address this now. The Jaju Minbo article, which analyzed the report by KBS TV, writes that a North Korean submarine came South, attacked the Cheonan and the US submarine, and may have sunk both boats. However, in my view, the possibility of the North having done this is extremely low.

Right after the Cheonan sinking, the US and ROK governments announced that there was little possibility that the Cheonan sank as a result of North Korean attack. If there had been a North Korean submarine attack, the North Korean government, after a few days, might have proudly announced that it had sunk both ROK and US boats. If US and ROK governments announced before then that the sinking was probably not the result of a North Korean attack, both governments would risk being criticized by citizens, and high officials would have had to assume responsibility and resign. If it was truly not an attack from the North, the US and ROK governments would be expected to quickly announce that it was not from the North. Jaju Minbo, a leftwing newspaper close to North Korea, perhaps simply wanted to show the power of North Korean military.

As noted, a US-ROK joint military exercise was in progress that day near Byaengnyeong Island and it is highly probable that the Cheonan was at the site as part of the exercise. If a military exercise was going on, then other US and ROK ships were present. So if a North Korean submarine did attack, the US and ROK would have fiercely counterattacked and sunk it. Even if they failed to sink it and it escaped, if there had been an attack from the North, then the US and ROK could stand in the position of justice for simply having defended themselves, so they would immediately have announced that such a battle had occurred.

The North feared that the US and ROK would use the joint military exercise as a pretext to move north and attack its nuclear facilities. Pretending to conduct a military exercise as a cover for a real attack is a plausible US military strategy. For the North to attack in such a situation would be suicidal as it would give the US and ROK a pretext for war.

If the boat was not sunk by an attack from the North, the remaining possibility is that an error occurred. I suspect that the US military had not informed the ROK that an American submarine was stationed underwater near Byaengnyeong Island. If the American submarine that sank at the third buoy was underwater for a long time, it follows that it did not participate in the joint exercise that day (it had other duties).

I think it likely that the US submarine, which was off the coast to the south of Byaengnyeong, happened to approach closer to the shore than expected and ROK forces, mistaking it for a North Korean submarine, fired. When the US submarine returned fire, both boats sank as a result of a friendly attack due to a misconception. The US submarine must have known of the approach of the Cheonan with the use of a passive sonar used for receiving communication. But if the American military was keeping the presence of the submarine secret from the ROK, then the US submarine could not communicate by radio with the Cheonan.

The Cheonan was attacked from the port side. The ROK authorities announced that the Cheonan at that time was heading northwest. If that is really the case, then the boat’s port faced the open sea. The American submarine underwater near the shore would have attacked from the island side, the reverse of the open sea side. This contradicts the above hypothesis. Except, in order to hide the friendly attack by the US military ship, the possibility exists that the ROK authorities announced the direction of the Cheonan in reverse. (If they announced that the Cheonan was attacked from the island side, then the North Korea attack theory would not be possible and the suspicion of a friendly attack would become stronger.)

China’s Role in North-South Arbitration After the Cheonan Incident

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, media and political circles in South Korea uniformly expressed condolences. Concerts and entertainment events were canceled one after another. The rightwing suddenly became active, demanding that the government “counterattack North Korea.”  ROK local elections will take place in June. The Cheonan political situation will greatly influence the campaign.

Donald Kirk, an American reporter in South Korea, who is familiar with the American military situation, compares the Cheonan incident to 9/11. Some people say that this is going too far. But the possibility that they wish to conceal, that the Cheonan was sunk by friendly fire from the American submarine, is achieved by casting suspicion that it was sunk by North Korea. The result is that political circles and society are aroused, naturally making Americans want to liken the incident to 9/11.

A former reporter for the New York Times calls the sinking of the Cheonan a tragedy that is comparable to 9/11

An opposition member of the ROK National Assembly challenged the Minister of National Defense, demanding that the truth be revealed and noting that the sinking of the Cheonan may have been a mistake made by the US military. He was criticized by rightwing media as “a foolish congressman trusting conspiracy theorists.” The same label was applied by the mass media to US and Japanese representatives who sought to inquire into the truth of 9/11.

Rep. Park Yongson Engages the Minister of National Defense over “The American Inadvertent Bombing Theory,” which was Officially Rejected as False

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, if the US and ROK had announced that the Cheonan was attacked by the North and they would counterattack, the result would have been full-scale war. However, the US military in South Korea is moving toward withdrawal. The command in case of emergencies is scheduled to be transferred from the US to the ROK military in 2012. Moreover, leadership of international politics in the Korean peninsula is in process of transfer from the US to China with the approval of US administrations from Bush to Obama.

Within the military-industrial complex centered in the Pentagon, there must be opponents of multipolarization who wish to reverse this. They do not wish to sit back and watch East Asia fall under Chinese hegemony in this manner, with US military withdrawal. They naturally seek to take advantage of the Cheonan incident to induce war between South Korea and North Korea, and, as at the time of the Korean war, develop it into war between the US and China so as to reverse multipolarization in East Asia. Although I may be projecting too far, one may even suspect that they provoked the friendly attack by concealing from the ROK military the underwater navigation of the US submarine around Byaengnyeong Island.

If a great war again erupts on the Korean peninsula triggered by the Cheonan Incident, even if Japan does not bribe the US with the “sympathy budget”, the stationing of US forces in Japan would continue, and the US would again view Japan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier. The Japanese economy would thus again benefit from Korean special procurements after sixty years. This would be a desirable outcome for Japanese who favor dependency on the US.

However, amidst the strife centered, US multipolarists appear to be stronger than the military-industrial complex (and US-Britain centrists). The result is that the Cheonan Incident has not led to a second US- Korean War. Further, what is regrettable for those in Japan and the ROK who wish to continue dependence on the US, the US has transferred to China the role of mitigating the aggravated North-South relationship.

Chairman Hu Jintao of China, on 30 April, talked with President Lee Myung-bak who attended the opening ceremony of the World Expo in Shanghai. Three days later he hosted a visit from North Korean President Kim Jong-il, making possible a China-North Korea summit. It is unclear whether Six-Party talks will be held subsequently, but China has certainly strengthened its role as mediator between North and South Korea.

Many South Korean citizens have come to distrust government pronouncements on the Cheonan Incident. In the ROK, the fact that the American submarine sank near the third buoy may change at some future time from “conspiracy theory” to fact. As long as ROK national policy remains one of dependence on the US, the matter of the third buoy will have to be suppressed. But to the extent that the ROK moves toward multipolarization (emphasizing China and coexistence between North and South), the lid will be taken off.


This is an updated version of an article that was originally published at Tanaka Sakai’s website on May 7, 2010. 韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層

Tanaka Sakai posted another article on the aftermath of the incident on May 31, 2010.

See Satoko Norimatsu's survey of critical English language analyses of the Cheonan Incident at Peace Philosophy blog.

See also Selig Harrison, What Seoul Should Do About the Sinking of the Cheonam.

See Jeff Stein, Asian Analysts Question Korea Torpedo Incident.

See Yoichi Shimatsu,  Did an American Mine Sink > South Korean Ship?  


Tanaka Sakai is the creator, researcher, writer and editor of Tanaka News (, a Japanese-language news service on Japan and the world.

Tanaka Sakai's new book is 『日本が「対米従属」を脱する日—多極化する新世界秩序の中で—』

The Day Japan Breaks with "Subordination to the US": Amidst the Multipolarizing New World Order

Recommended citation: Tanaka Sakai, "Who Sank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? A New Stage in the US-Korean War and US-China Relations," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 21-1-10, May 24, 2010.

We welcome your comments on this and all other articles. More are available on our homepage. Please consider subscribing to our email newsletter or RSS feed, or following us via Twitter or Facebook.

Ariel Ky
Dear Tanaka-Sakai, Actually I think it's possible that the Cheonan was hit by friendly fire, although I suspected that it was from her sister corvette, the Sokcho, in one of those mishaps that can happen in live fire military exercises simulating actual war conditions. How did you establish that Operation Foal Eagle was prolonged until April 30? I had wondered if it was still being carried out when the Cheonan sank. Also, can you tell the difference between a nuclear-powered submarine and a submarine carrying nuclear warheads? I did a little fact-checking to verify an important part of your story, the part about the USS Columbia, the American submarine that supposedly sank, according to your speculations in this article.. Here's what I found: USS Columbia Returns to Pearl Harbor_By MC2(SW/AW/SCW) Ronald Gutridge_COMSUBPAC Public Affairs Release Date: 05/03/2010 PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii Los Angeles-class fast-attack nuclear powered submarine USS Columbia (SSN 771) returned to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Monday, May 3, following a six-month deployment to the western Pacific region. “This was an incredibly successful deployment from completing tasking important to national interests, to engaging our allies in a positive environment.” said Cmdr. Craig Blakely, Commanding Officer, USS Columbia. “Columbia performed superbly, demonstrating the versatility of the U.S. fast attack submarine.” “Almost 70% of the Columbia crew was on their first deployment, but you would never know from their performance,” said Blakely. “I am extremely proud of the conduct of the crew. Whether playing soccer against our fellow submariners in South Korea or keeping the ship safe during stressful deployed operations, everyone was professional.” Columbia, commissioned in 1995, was the last 688-class submarine to be built at Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, CT. This submarine is one of the most versatile ships in the world, capable of numerous types of missions in a myriad of regions including long range Tomahawk strike operations, anti-submarine and surface ship tracking operations, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and even Special Forces insertions.
Arthur Borges
Um Ariel, a nuclear-powered vessel is one that uses a nuclear reactor to turn the propellors, light up light bulbs and do other cool stuff that needs electricity. A vessel carrying nuclear weapons is anything schlepping bombs around an ocean regardless of what the engine runs on. Although most commonly, nuclear weapons are carried on nuclear-powered vessels, Israel for example, carries them around in diesel-powered submarines from Germany.
Arthur Borges
Ariel, the USS Columbia may well have returned to home port but the third buoy didn't. Moreover the ROK combat diver returned as a body. And so on.
Still, this whole theory hinges on a second shipwreck. If a US vessel was sunk, then a US vessel must be missing. Unless the vessel was secret, it must have come from somewhere, meaning its absence should have been noticed by now. Even if excuses for that absence have been given, eventually, the families of the crew members will ask for an explanation. You can't cover up the disappearance of an entire sub crew forever. It has been two months already. I am not saying that no other vessel has been sunk, but I am saying that this whole article seems to rely on hearsay and rumors rather than convincing argumentation.
Paul Arenson
The article certainly gives one reason to doubt the official story. However, it can easily lead to a dead end or "9-11 Truth type conspiracy theories unless the left is willing to go beyond this. Much of this is speculation and educated guessing, but it may never be able to be proved. What I mean by going beyond this is addressing the military posturing that is being used to justify a US presence in North East Asia. I am particularly concerned with Okinawa because there has been a blackout in my view in the Japanese media on the role of the Okinawa bases in murdering people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam. US imperial rule goes unquestioned, and even the left tends to focus only on the rapes and the accidents, and not the fact that Japan's bases serve as staging areas for killing people. Thus an uneducated populace will roll over and let Hatoyama and company forcibly take over even more Okinawan land for the bases. I have had a few letters to the Japan Times rejected on this topic whereas others have gotten by. They allow criticism as long as it is not too specific. And when the criticism is of the US, they tend to reject the letters I have sent at least. I have also seen very few letters on this theme by others, wondering if there is an intentional blocking of anything that tells the truth about the bases For sure the Japan Times has CIA connections with the membership of two of its staff-publisher Ogasawara and editor Brad Glossserman in the CSIS Pacific Forum, which included Kissinger and Albright among others. Anyway, I would like to see more people on the left deal with the reality of the US presence in the region. It is my understanding that the Korean left, even though they are closer to any potential flashpoints, is much less accepting of US bases than people in Japan, who have been led to believe that the US presence here protects them. Yet we see very little on this. Of course one does not need to defend North Korea in order to show that military bases do NOT make for a safer South Korea and Japan, at least in my book. But I would like to see someone put this together in relation to the the Okinawa base issue. It is too much of a coincidence that this would happen as the base issue heats up, lending some credence to Tanaka's speculation. Of course, one does not need to reassure the world that North Korea is completely benign to debunk those who point to its behavior as a reason to keep US bases. paul arenson
nick bailey
I was a bit surprised by the large chunks of torpedo that were shown as being recovered. Why wasn't it destroyed? But what do I know? The article makes quite a good 'who benefits' case.
Arthur Borges
A discussion forum at Pravda contains postings claiming that an Israeli submarine based in Cam Ranh Bay sank the Cheonan. If the USS Columbia did indeed return normally, perhaps someone should be counting the Israeli submarine fleet? QUOTE Originally Posted by shablon >It has been reported, I do not know if it was true, that an Israeli submarine was in the area, at the time. Israel bases its two submarines >in Kam Rahn Bay Vietnam (?) Pasted from
The ASIA TIMES had a similar story, comparing the photo of the recovered torpedo with the actual plans of that torpedo according to manufacturing specifications. We are not being told the truth by the U.S. State Department, i.e. Hillary. God help us if some kind of war actually starts over this false flag event. I can't take much more of this madness, I don't know about you.
Satoko Norimatsu
Even Washington Post started to talk about the fact that there are different observations and theories about this incident, which is healthy. Please see more important articles at this link:
Good reasoning. At the initial stage, I read that President Lee demanded North Korea to admit it and apologise to South Korea What?, Just an apology for the loss of a naval warship and so many lives?
Punky Brewster
The impossibility of all this is that whomever responsible could be murdered if they tried to cover up a friendly-fire incident in the way described. Why would anyone friggin risk their life when they can just say we screwed up. So many died from friendly-fire in Iraq and no one tried to cover up. Why now?
Don McElfresh
Could the torpedo have come from a submarine wreck sunk during the Korean War (1951) about 20 miles southwest of the sinking site for the ROKS Cheonan?
Xavier Souto
"The impossibility of all this is that whomever responsible could be murdered if they tried to cover up a friendly-fire incident in the way described. Why would anyone friggin risk their life when they can just say we screwed up. So many died from friendly-fire in Iraq and no one tried to cover up. Why now?" It's a psy war, a propaganda war, a false flag operation.
Letstry Reason
Web address (웹 주소): or Twitter ID (트위터 아이디): @letstryreason or 영어메일로 세계언론에◇좌초면 사기죄【어뢰면 직무유기죄(수준66) - 생각해보자 2010/06/10 Questions on the Cheonan Incident and the Power of South Korean Netizens by Letstryreason Original: 2010/05/30 version 63(수준63) Updated 업데이트: 2010/06/02,09,10 versions 64~66(수준64)~(수준66) Dear English Reader, A huge number of South Korean citizens of the Internet have been courageously exercising their democratic power by expressing their doubts about the current South Korean regime's version of the Cheonan Incident. Caveat: Under the current South Korean regime, South Korean citizens can be sued for defamation by their own government officials, and defamation in South Korea is a crime (as well as a civil offense) prosecuted by the government's own centrally-controlled national prosecutors who selectively choose or choose not whom to prosecute. For example, recently, S.C. Shin, "a civil[ian] investigator [appointed]recommended by [the South] Korean National Assembly for [the investigation of] the sinking of Cheonan" got (criminally) sued for defamation by a government official for expressing disagreement over the current South Korean regime's version of the Cheonan Incident. Those huge number of South Korean netizens' writings are practically all in Korean, incomprehensible to most English readers in the world; so, I collected the following list of documents written in English for your sake. (Please save my URL Web address and come back later for updates as I may later post here my writings in English and Japanese (and maybe too in French, German and Spanish) as time permits.) *URL Web address: or *원문 주소: 또는 제가 새 글들을 영어, 일본어(프랑스어, 독일어, 스페인어)와 한글로 원문 주소에 계속 올리고 업데이트를 할테니까 "▶드디어 터졌다!미국 최대 신문이 천안함 의혹 보도" 이 곳의 원문 주소를 기억해 주시고 다시 방문해 주세요. 이 글은, 2010-5-30 10:35 (미국 동부 워싱턴 포스트지 시간으로 May 29, 2010, 09:35 PM)에 원문 주소에 처음 등록되었습니다. I welcome your comments コメント in English, 日本語 or whatever language you wish to write in. Would you like to receive an immediate notification when my article here is updated? Then, please sign up at or, and visit (My twitter ID is @letstryreason.) 여러분, 지금 트위터에 가입하셔서 (http://twtkr.com에나 http://twitter.com에) 제가 글을 업데이트하면 편리하게 저로부터 연락을 즉시 받도록 하세요. 저의 트위터 주소는 또는 @letstryreason 입니다. It takes time to write up a good translation; so, meanwhile, please use Google Language Tools to read Korean documents: 영어나 일본어로된 기사의 한글 번역을 원하시면 아래 링크에 가서 '웹페이지 번역하기'를 이용하시면 됩니다: 韓国語や英語で書かれている記事の日本語翻訳をご希望の場合は、以下のリンクをクリックして「ウェブページを翻訳する」ことを利用してください。: The following [1]to[21]-numbered links have documents written in English: (세계 언론과 외국인들에게 아래 링크를 보내면, 읽어 볼 수 있게 영어로 되어있습니다:) ☜ 읽어볼거리 1]"[Cheonan Warship Report2] Eight Questions Needing Answers on the Investigation of the Sunken Naval Corvette Cheonan" - People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (참여연대) 2010/06/04 2]"[Cheonan Warship Report3] Six Problems on the Investigation Process of the Cheonan Sinking" - People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (참여연대) 2010/06/04 3]"[Cheonan Warship Report1] The PSPD's Stance on the Final Investigation Report on the Cheonan" - People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(참여연대) 2010/06/04 4]"South Korean religious leaders question conclusions of the Cheonan sinking investigation" - kyle 2010/05/28 - The Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (한국기독교장로회총회 2010/05/20 5]"The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To" - Scott Creighton(스콧 크레이튼) 기자 2010/05/24 6]"PCC-772 Cheonan: An Unacceptable Provocation by the United States of America and the International Community has a Duty To Respond" - Scott Creighton 기자 2010/05/27 7]"German Made Torpedo Sunk South Korean Cheonan" - Scott Creighton 기자 2010/05/22 8]"Letter to Hillary" - Letstryreason 2010/05/26 (sent by email to Hillary via the U.S. Embassy in Korea at 11:38 AM and via a U.S. address at 10:53 AM; copies of the letter were also sent to the China Embassy in Korea at 11:23 AM and to Obama at 08:53 AM.) (http: *to be released sometime later) (A separate different email from Letstryreason was sent to U.S. Ambassador Stephens at 12:26 PM on 2010/05/28. *"I regard so highly Korea’s most recent election."="저는 한국의 가장 최근 선거를 높이 사고 있습니다." - Kathleen Stephens, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea 캐슬린 스티븐스(=심은경) 주한 미국대사 2010/06/07; (한글); 9]"Letter to Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of [S]tate" - 신상철(S.C. Shin, "a civil[ian] investigator recommended[appointed] by [the South] Korean National Assembly for [the investigation of] the sinking of Cheonan") 2010/05/26 10]"U.S. submarine sunk in fact cause [Cheonan] 천안함 침몰 원인이 미군 잠수함이라는 증거" 11]"韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層 (한국 군함 “천안”호 침몰의 내막)" - a Japanese news media report (일본어 원문) (한글 번역) 12]"The Sinking of Cheonan: Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident" - Stephen Gowans 2010/05/20 13]Google trends:Gulf of Tonkin before Cheonan "천안함 사건, 미국 개입의 간접증거?(구글검색빈도)" 14]"What if North Korea didn't fire the torpedo?" - 'Prometheus Bound' 2010/05/21 15]"Analysts question Korea torpedo incident" - The Washington Post 신문 Jeff Stein(제프 스타인) 기자 2010/05/27 *이메일 주소: 16]"Beijing suspects false flag attack on South Korean corvette" - Online Journal Wayne Madsen 기자 2010/05/28 *이메일 주소: 17]"Questions about Cheonan Sinking - What's Available in English 天安艦沈没事件への疑問" - 'satoko1' 2010/05/28 *이메일 주소: 18]"No base stories of Korea" 19]"Organizing Notes" - Bruce Gagnon 샘플 영어 편지들 (English letters sent to Washington, D.C.): 20]To U.S. Senate "미 의회와 행정부로 보낸 천안함 질의서 - 사람사는 세상 시애틀" 21]To Obama "오바마 미 대통령에게 보낸 편지-사람세상 시애틀" Sample Questions on the Cheonan Incident, published on 2010/06/04 "[Cheonan Warship Report2] Eight Questions Needing Answers on the Investigation of the Sunken Naval Corvette Cheonan Question 1. Had been really a torpedo-induced water column? Question 2. No such severe injuries evident of a torpedo explosion found in the bodies of survivors and deceased soldiers Question 3. Is it true that there is no TOD[Thermal Observation Device] recordings from the early stage of the Cheonan incident? Question 4. There are no severe damages evident of an explosion on the severed surface, on the bottom of the ship and in the interior of the hull. Question 5. Why the military concealed the finding and refloating of the gas turbine room? And why did they omit the investigation of the gas turbine room from investigating? Question 6. Were the oxidized aluminum substances, not gun powder, evident of an explosion? Question 7. What is the profile of the YONO class submarine? Is it understandable that the submarine had not been followed for several days by the ROK[Republic of Korea] and the U.S. surveillance? Question 8. Why couldn't a torpedo launch be detected? This document summarizes the questions raised by the Center for Peace and Disarmament of People's Solidarity for Perspiratory[Participatory] Democracy (PSPD) on the report released on May 20, 2010 by the joint civilian-military investigation group (JIG) under the Ministry of Defense on the cause of sinking of the naval warship Cheonan." ____________________________________________________________________________ "[Cheonan Warship Report3] Six Problems on the Investigation Process of the Cheonan Sinking Problem1. The military not disclosing and censoring basic information on the Cheonan vessel Problem2. Hiding of the TOD video-recordings of the Cheonan breaking into half and sinking and changing of words Problem3. Imposing political and legal measures and restrictions against ordinary citizens raising doubts Problem4. The JIG practically excluding civilians Problem5. The JIG that limited investigative efforts by civilian members Problem6. Unknown roles of the foreign investigators" The following [1]to[10]-numbered links have documents written in Japanese: 次の[1]から[10]は日本語で書かれています。: 1]"米国物理学教授、「天安艦は座礁か衝突で沈没」 「合調団発表のとおりなら天安艦はばらばらになるはず」; 韓国 民・軍合同調査団 天安艦 沈没事件 調査結果の全文; 【天安号沈没事件の調査結果と発表に対する記者会見文】" 2]"米国物理学教授、「天安艦は座礁か衝突で沈没」 「合調団発表のとおりなら天安艦はばらばらになるはず」; 『爆発はなかった 魚雷もなかった』-天安号沈没事件民間調査員の訴え-; 爆発はなかった 魚雷もなかった" 3]"『爆発はなかった 魚雷もなかった』-天安号沈没事件民間調査員の訴え-" 4]"「天安」沈没の調査結果(邦訳)" 5]"過ぎたるは及ばざるが如し" 6]"韓国の「運動圏」が天安号沈没事件に対する政府発表を批判" 7]"米国物理学教授、「天安艦は座礁か衝突で沈没」 合調団発表のとおりなら天安艦はばらばらになるはず」" - ホン・ソンマン記者 2010/05/28 (한글 原文) "미국 대학 교수, “천안함, 좌초나 충돌로 침몰” “합조단 발표대로라면 천안함은 갈기갈기 찢어져야”" - 홍석만 기자 2010/05/28 8]"韓国哨戒艦が沈没した件で、韓国国会で推薦された専門家がクリントン国務長官に宛てた手紙" 9]"爆発はなかった 魚雷もなかった There was no Explosion. There was No Torpedo." 10]"韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層" in Chinese (중국어): 1]"韩国民间团体对“天安舰”结果提出8大疑点" 2010年06月05 2]"ZT:最新证据显示:“天安”号事件是韩国自摆乌龙" 3]"因质疑“天安”号调查结果 一调查团成员、一议员被起诉" 2010年06月04日 4]"不是朝鲜鱼雷!!!韩国内被封杀的调查结论 (转)" in Vietnamese (베트남어 번역본): "Thư của nhà điều tra hàng hải dân sự S.C.Shin" in English, but in the Netherlands: "There was no Explosion. There was No Torpedo." ◐ 신문 기자 메일 주소: 워싱턴 포스트(The Washington Post)지 신문 기자 제프 스타인(Jeff Stein): 뉴욕 타임스지 한인 기자 최상헌(Choe Sang-Hun): 뉴욕 타임스(The New York Times)지 신문 기자: 웨인 맫슨 보고서 기자: 온라인 저널: ◐ 힐러리 대통령 선거운동 이메일 주소: "오바마(에게 메일을 ..... 한국 국민들이 천안함사건에 관해 어떤 생각을 가지고 있는지를, 진실이 무엇인지를 각자 메일로 보내자. 영어는 좀 서툴러도 괜찮다. 지금 오바마를 포함한 미국정부가 무슨 짓을 하고 있는지를 설명해 주자. 메일을 보내자. 오바마와 힐러리에게 그들의 바보짓을 알리자." "보내고 싶은데 영어가 조금 떨리네"?→한글을 영어로 자동 번역하기 링크: ("사람사는 세상을 위한 시애틀 모임과 연대한 단체들은 이미 엄청난 언론홍보를 하였습니다. 미국내 2천여 기자들에게 두차례의 이메일을 보낸데다 상원의원, 하원의원, 주지사, 국무성, 백악관, 수십군데의 언론사 등에 합조단의 발표는 과학적으로 거짓이라는 홍보물과 자료들을 보냈습니다. 사람사는 세상 워싱턴에서는 백악관 앞에서 이곳 월요일에 시위도 계획하고 있습니다. 당장 언론에 실리지는 않는다해도 진실이 무엇인지 크게 알린 계기가 될 것입니다." 2010/05/31 ↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓↑ ★한글메일로도 세계언론에◇좌초면 사기죄【어뢰면 직무유기죄 *손쉽게 한글 메일로도 세계언론에 알릴 수 있는 방법→주한 외국대사관에 한글 이메일 보내기 (각 대사관에 한글 읽어 볼 수 있는 사람 있음.) (Please send your messages to the Ambassadors of the foreign embassies in Korea:) ◐ 주한 외국대사관 이메일 주소: 중국 대사관: (주북한 중국대사관: 미국 대사관:, 러시아 대사관: 스웨덴 대사관: 베네수엘라 대사관: 브라질 대사관: 인도 대사관: 프랑스 대사관: 독일 대사관: 네덜란드 대사관: 이탈리아 대사관: 스페인 대사관: 영국 대사관: 호주 대사관: 일본 대사관: (반기문 유엔 사무총장:; @secgen 그 외의 세계 각 나라 주한 외국대사관들의 이메일 주소 링크 → 주한 외국대사관 이메일 리스트:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Hondukor@Elim.Net,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ★▶드디어 터졌다!미국 최대 신문이 천안함 의혹 보도 드디어 미국에서 (그러니 아마도 세계에서) 가장 영향력이 세고 큰 주류 신문지인 워싱턴 포스트지가 천안함 의혹에 대해 관심을 보이기 시작했습니다. (물론, 영향력상 최대 신문지는 하나 더 있죠 - 뉴욕 타임스지는 아직 조용) 워싱턴 포스트지는 워터게이트 사건(Watergate scandal)을 보도해서 압도적으로 당선된 닉슨 대통령을 임기도 못 채우고 쫓아낸바있는 바로 그 신문사 입니다. 이제는 혹시 사기꾼나라로 국제적 망신을 당하기 보다는 국민-수준높은 나라로 국제적 대 칭송을 받읍시다 - 인터넷 초강국인 대한민국의 네티즌들이 인터넷 상에서 멋진 민주적 활약을 벌이므로서, 선진국이라는 나라의 미국국민, 미국국회, 미국언론들이 병신같이 자기나라 대통령(부시)에게 사기당해 전쟁을 일으킨 것 보다는 오히려 '대한민국쪽 국민-수준이 더 높았다'라고. 워싱턴 포스트지의 제프 스타인 Jeff Stein 기자 자신이 쓴 기사 글의 제목은 "Analysts question Korea torpedo incident" 입니다. (제목은 보통 글을 요약하니까 아마 제목이 중요할 수도 있겠죠?) Analysts = 분석가들, 전문 분석가들(은) question = 의심하다, 의문을 갖다; 이의를 제기하다 Korea torpedo incident = 한국 어뢰 사건(을) (출처: (한글을 모르고 아직 정보를 많이 못 받은 상태에서) 제프 스타인 기자는 공평하게 보도하기위해 여러 출처에서 주장하는 말들을 이 기사에 인용하고 있지만, 어떤 특정한 결론을 내리지는 않고있습니다. 자타가 인정하는 사실, '워싱턴 포스트지가 미국에서 (그러니 아마도 세계에서) 가장 영향력이 쎈 주류 신문지 중 하나'라는 뜻은, 기사를 쓴 워싱턴 포스트지의 제프 스타인 기자 자신 말고도 (영향력을 가지고 있는 언론인들과 미국의 수도, 워싱턴에 사는 정치인들은 물론) 다른 경쟁 신문회사 기자들도 이 워싱턴 포스트지 인터넷 주소에 와서 기사와 댓글들을 본다는 말입니다. 다른 경쟁 신문회사 기자들이 이런 특종감 정보를 혹 댓글에서 보고 가만있을까요? - 제프 스타인 기자도 그걸아니까 가만있으면 자기만 손해. (그래서 영향력을 발휘합니다.) 여러분, 도움이 됩니다 - 가서 좀 영어로 댓글을 올려주세요. 워싱턴 포스트지의 제프 스타인 Jeff Stein 기자(이메일 주소에게 정보를 보내 주십시오. 또, 워싱턴 포스트지의 아래의 링크에 가시면, 간단한 등록후(sign in을 클릭), 댓글도 올리실 수 있습니다(영어로). 영어로된-[천안함 사건]에 대해 의혹을 제시하는-기사가 이제 21개를 넘어서기 시작했습니다. 외국인들에게 보여주고 도대체 그들은 어떻게 생각하는지 한번 물어봅시다. 서로 정보를 공유하는 세계여론을, 열린 인터넷에서 한번 만들어 봅시다. (세계가 알고 있다는 것을 알게되면 어떻게 될까요? ↔ [천안함 사건] 이명박을 압박할 수 있는 방법) 
Hello all, First of all, look at the propeller blades: As the former JIG-member Mr. S,C. Shin mentioned, a grounding is very likely. There is no other explanation for the badly damaged propeller blades for me. And the surface of the blades is very clean in the outer areas. This indicates it went through the ground for a long time. What nobody mentioned so far: What happened to the acoustic signature, when the blades were so heavily damaged? When the Cheonan finally got free, from that time it could have been identified as an "intruding enemy ship" (and perhaps taking revenge for the sinking of a north korean navy vessel 4 month before). Friendly fire is very likely for me. It was dark and perhaps some parts of the crew went already aboard when grounded, while others were busy controlling the propulsion system. Now have a look on the inventary of the South Korean Navy, especialy the submarines! It operates 3 german type 214 submarines (Son Won-il, Jung Ji, An Jung-geun), made by Hyundai Heavy Industries and equipped with the state-of-the-art propulsion system, nearly invisible due to the SPHINX-D Radar System, and equipped with the most modern german torpedo system DM2-A4 (very quite). The "german torpedo" theorie was skipped, when the torpedo parts were found on May 15th, indicating to a north korean torpedo. Wihout these parts, the South Korean Navy would have been in big trouble! So please take into account the possibility of "Friendly Fire" by the own Navy (and faking evidence to cover it). Please verify the position of the South Korean submarines at the time of the incident. (The JIG obviously did not.) Type 214 submarine: Torpedo DM2-A4:
Add comment
Authors: For all articles by the author, click on author's name.   Sakai Tanaka