Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 06/17/2009 View Tue 06/16/2009 View Mon 06/15/2009 View Sun 06/14/2009 View Sat 06/13/2009 View Fri 06/12/2009 View Thu 06/11/2009
1
2009-06-17 China-Japan-Koreas
U.S. to Confront, Not Board, North Korean Ships
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2009-06-17 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6487 views ]  Top

#1 The resolution authorizes nations to seek to stop suspect North Korean shipments on the high seas, but they do not authorize forcible boarding or inspections.

Nice little nuanced wording there. Seek out the enemy and request that he cooperates. Gum them to death. Brilliant. Just brilliant. We're becoming EUniks, thanks to the Big O.
Posted by Alaska Paul in Thorne Bay, AK 2009-06-17 01:52||   2009-06-17 01:52|| Front Page Top

#2 In discussing President Obama's strategy on Monday, administration officials said that the United States would report any ship that refused inspection to the Security Council.

Some "strategy". Why even waste the time or the resources?
Posted by tu3031 2009-06-17 11:35||   2009-06-17 11:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Mr. Capone, may we inspect your warehouse for contraband?

No. Now go away or I shall be forced to taunt you.
Posted by ed 2009-06-17 12:00||   2009-06-17 12:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Go ahead, talk 'em to death! Every day in port costs the Nork shipping companies tens of thousands of dollars. Hold 'em up a couple of weeks, and whatever cargo they're carrying now becomes a liability, whether it's missile-related or not. Do this to every ship that leaves North Korea, and you'll bleed them to death.

Even a BAD policy can be turned to the good if you can find a way to turn it to your advantage.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2009-06-17 12:02|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2009-06-17 12:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Anybody got a couple of attack subs they're not really using?
Posted by mojo 2009-06-17 12:37||   2009-06-17 12:37|| Front Page Top

#6 Folks, I don't think you see the subtle play here.

A Nork ship can't sail to Syria without stopping. They have fuel up somewhere, perhaps two or three times. Each time they do it's an opportunity for us to get the authorities at that port to do an inspection.

Now the port authorities don't have to listen to us. But perhaps we could, you know, 'persuade' them. And then it's India, or Yemen, or Bangladesh, or whoever, who's doing the inspecting.

It's subtle. It gives us options and introduces more uncertainty for the Norks -- will a given country let them fuel their ship without asking questions, or will they start opening packing crates?

I personally would prefer a Nork ship loaded with missile parts to disappear quietly at sea. Sorry Kimmie, but that was one hell of a cyclone, didn't you get the weather report? Too bad what happened to your ship.

But I don't see that happening just yet, so this is an interesting play, IF our State Department, CIA and National Security team will play the game hard.
Posted by Steve White 2009-06-17 13:05||   2009-06-17 13:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Mk48 "cyclone" can be pretty rough weather for any ship, especially a piece of junk Nork MS.
Posted by OldSpook 2009-06-17 13:10||   2009-06-17 13:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Steve W., suppose the fueling port says to the NORKS: "No boardee, no fuelee." I wonder what the range on the Nork ships is before they require fueling. I wonder what the UN Security Council resolution says. I don't see the UN having the cajones to deny fuel.
Posted by JohnQC 2009-06-17 13:31||   2009-06-17 13:31|| Front Page Top

#9 theoretically, the Norks could send along a tanker, couldnt they, and refuel at sea. Thats pretty costly for ordinary commerce though. It would pretty much mark a shipment as high priority.
Posted by liberal hawk 2009-06-17 14:44||   2009-06-17 14:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Lotsa room in cargo ships for extra fuel tanks.
Posted by ed 2009-06-17 14:48||   2009-06-17 14:48|| Front Page Top

#11 China, once a close cold war ally

Seriously, how does the media get away with howlers like this? An ally? A close ally? Detente, certainly - inspired by a common opposition to the Soviets and nothing more.

And as for China implementing the resolution - the journalist might want to look at a map, a North Korean ship won't need to refuel in China because they're RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
Posted by gromky 2009-06-17 17:11||   2009-06-17 17:11|| Front Page Top

#12 ION BHARAT RAKSHAK [India] > STATEMENT: SOUTH KOREA TO REMAIN UNDER US NUCLEAR UMBRELLA.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-06-17 23:31||   2009-06-17 23:31|| Front Page Top

23:31 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:24 ed
23:23 JAB
23:21 JAB
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:12 Pappy
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:02 ed
23:00 Pappy
22:59 ed
22:46 ed
22:20 eLarson
22:19 eLarson
21:59 Frank G
21:52 Classer
21:42 Frank G
21:35 Classer
21:28 SteveS
21:17 Broadhead6
21:14 SteveS
21:07 Broadhead6
21:04 Cyber Sarge
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com