You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
Nork ship reverses course
2009-07-01
WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials said Tuesday that a North Korean ship has turned around and is headed back toward the north where it came from, after being tracked for more than a week by American Navy vessels on suspicion of carrying illegal weapons.

The move keeps the U.S. and the rest of the international community guessing: Where is the Kang Nam going? Does its cargo include materials banned by a new U.N. anti-proliferation resolution?
Did Kimmie bow to the UN? Perhaps Kimmie doesn't want to antagonize Bambi while Bambi is helping their mutual friend Zelaya in Honduras? Did the ship blow a gasket and is now limping home? Did the Burmese decide that they didn't need the guns and ammo that badly? Was there not a safe port within reach?
The ship left a North Korean port of Nampo on June 17 and is the first vessel monitored under U.N. sanctions that ban the regime from selling arms and nuclear-related material.

The Navy has been watching it -- at times following it from a distance. It traveled south and southwest for more than a week; then, on Sunday, it turned around and headed back north, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

Nearly two weeks after the ship left North Korea, officials said Tuesday they still don't know where it is going. But it was some 250 miles south of Hong Kong on Tuesday, one official said. Though acknowledging all along that the Kang Nam's destination was unclear, some officials said last week that it could be going to Myanmar and that it was unclear whether it could reach there without stopping in another port to refuel.

Two officials had said earlier in the day Tuesday that the Kang Nam had been moving very slowly in recent days, something that could signal it was trying to conserve fuel.
Or that they had a mechanical problem, or that Kimmie was stalling for time, or maybe the Vietnamese decided not to let them refuel.
They said they didn't know what the turnaround of the ship means, nor what prompted it.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Sunday that Washington was "following the progress of that ship very closely," but she would not say whether the U.S. would confront the Kang Nam.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  Navy ships can refuel under way, civilian snips Can't so naval ships have near infinite range (We also can take on provisions, and the ship distills fresh water from seawater) Again, effectively Infinite.

Depends. The Chinese merchant (arms) ship off the coast of South Africa was able to refuel. Likely because the crew were either PLAN or PLAN-reserve. The NorKs could have a similar set up wrt crew. Astern refueling really isn't that hard; at the worst, they meet up with a fuel barge in a sheltered cove and take on fuel at anchor.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-07-01 20:48  

#8  HMMMMMM, HMMMMMM, NOKOR HAS THREATENED PER SE WAR = NUKE-WMD FIRESTORM?SHOWER/RAIN AGZ THE US-ALLIES IFF ITS SHIPS ARE STOPPED ANDOR ITS TEST LAUNCHES ARE INTERCEPTED. Hence, the RUSH LIMBAUGH-ian, Spicy Kimchee-Squid Questionne'-vouz is will this NOKOR SHIP [ships?] head back home; or else linger in the region during Nokor's upcoming new launch towards Hawaii???

Read, NOKOR "FIRST-STRIKE" = "BOLT-FROM-THE-BLUE/SEA" as per this vessel [others?] already in the East-Central Pacific regions???

Sub-read, e.g. WW2 "Q-Ships".
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-07-01 19:03  

#7   (caveat:I am not a navy guy and don't know the fuel and range issues)
Answer,
Navy ships can refuel under way, civilian snips Can't so naval ships have near infinite range (We also can take on provisions, and the ship distills fresh water from seawater) Again, effectively Infinite.
Stern chases are very much in the navy's favor from the very start.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-07-01 14:46  

#6  They're off the coast of Vietnam. There's Chinese ports to the northeast.

I wouldn't go congratulating anyone just yet.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-07-01 11:51  

#5  Ok, quibble taken. but they dont need those things badly enough to pick them up by sub drop off.

A sub dropoff implies a valuable small package, like a nuke. China makes its own nukes.

Aside from which they can get anything they want from NKOR by land.
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-07-01 10:14  

#4  China buys raw materials from NK.
Posted by: ed   2009-07-01 10:06  

#3  to whom? I dont think Burma has subs. China doesnt need anything Nkor has to sell.

Ya think Iran sent a sub their? Venezuala?
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-07-01 10:00  

#2  Submarine drop off?
Posted by: 746   2009-07-01 09:59  

#1  kimmie doesnt give a bottle of kimchi for Zelaya, dont be silly.

My guess (caveat:I am not a navy guy and dont know the fuel and range issues) is that they did NOT have a safe port within reach. So they turned around, just as the UNSC policy envisioned.

I really doubt they were afraid of a Burmese inspection. Burma is the damned consignee on the arms shipment, they already KNOW whats in it, they friggin paid for it.

A good thing that happened on Obamas watch (so far) but really, the policy wasnt obamas alone,and it was in some respects an obvious policy that flowed out of ideas circulated years ago, IIUC.

Note- UNSC CAN be useful against baddies - IF the baddie is someone who has managed to piss off the PRC as well as us. A big enough IF not to RELY on the UNSC, but still reason not to write off the UNSC.

Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-07-01 09:51  

00:00