# N. and S. Korea firing artillery at each other **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645 "2010-11-23T06:29:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/541 "2010-12-08T21:59:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > REALLY?!?!?! Because that’s not the impression I got from Finn Again. Really. Here’s Article 51 in its entirety: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Note that the only requirements for triggering self-defense are: (1) You are a UN member. (2) Another nation attacked you. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/542 "2010-12-08T22:01:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That analogy fails because Israel has fallen under lethal rocket attack in the recent past, and also because I’m assuming the “patch of grass” is indisputably Israeli territory while the waters in question are not clearly North Korea’s. The analogy fails on a number of points, not the least of which that Damuri is trying to bring up an irrelevant subject when this topic is North Korea’s actions. And, of course, launching unguided rockets in the direction of populated areas is a different action that controlling the trajectory of artillery so that it lands in the empty, open ocean (that most likely did not belong to the ‘provoked’ party in any case). Unless of course someone is going to provide a cite for those long-suffering North Korean merfolk. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If it was indiscriminte then _If_? Are you denying that the BM-21 is totally unsuitable for targeted attacks and has a comparatively huge CEP? If you’re claiming that it is possible to engage in discriminating targeting with the BM-21, I suggest you provide a cite to that effect. [Because the fact is, it’s impossible.](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bm-21.htm) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > you would expect a more reandom distribution of where the rockets hit. Yah… that’s what we got. [ > [@](#): > > Tuesday’s hourlong artillery attack killed four people, injured 18 and became a new flashpoint of tension between the two Koreas—the first assault on South Korean land by the North since the Korean War of the 1950s. It destroyed 31 homes, and virtually every building on Yeonpyeong suffered some damage. ]([http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704693104575638301304069066.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704693104575638301304069066.html)) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its pretty clear they were aiming for the base. No such thing is clear, at all. Coincidentally, it also isn’t true. It is true that NK used unguided rockets to indiscriminately hit Yeonpyeong and had no physically possible way to limit damage to any one specific location, especially on an island that’s less than 3 square miles in area. And we know this because of the weaponry they chose to use, as well as the damage that the island suffered. But you don’t know that. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I dont think Finn Again is relying on the UN unless he relies on them as an authority only selectively. Irrelevant (and inaccurate) personal sniping. Effective! Of course, as pointed out numerous times, I don’t have to rely on anything at it’s Commissar who made the claims as has provided exactly zero cites to support his claims or his… unique… interpretation of international law. As for the operational definition of a valid casus belli, it’s pretty clear. (Hint: it’s got to do with actual provocations as opposed to your nonsense, which brings me to…) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > But yeah the question is whether or not the military exercise on contested waters is provocation. Finn seems to think its clear enough taht he can belittle anyone that thinks that military exercises in contesed waters is provocation. While I could probably do that, I guess, so far I’ve been content to belittle the absurdity you’ve used as an argument where you repeatedly commit the fallacy of equivocation and conflate any action which is “provocative” with an actual provocation to military force, which is a casus belli. And splashes in the open ocean, aint. > [@Commissar](#): > > Note that the only requirements for triggering self-defense are: > (1) You are a UN member. > (2) Another nation attacked you. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > \*In Soviet Russia, burden of proof shifts you! \* > On the Straight Dope, however, you probably won’t have much traction with your “I’m making stuff up now prove me wrong!” tactics. > > Yes, so you’re going to provide a cite for your claim that shells falling into the open ocean has ever, in the history of modern humanity, been classified as an attack against a nation, right? No? > Got any actual references to international law that say shells landing in water is an attack? No, you just made it up? > How about your claims that when article 51 refers to ‘self defense’ that really it’s including events that aren’t a threat, that the nation responding military doesn’t believe are a threat, and that have ended and therefore cannot be effected by any response at all? No? > Got any actual references to international law that say that self defense is applicable even if a nation isn’t defending its self? No? > > Of course you don’t, because you invented them. And true to form when caught at it, you’ve tried to change the subject and demand that someone else prove that your claims aren’t true, since you refuse to ever prove that they are. You have turnspeak down to, well, not an art form but more like a really predictable and amusing dodge. > Which is why you won’t cite how international law conforms to your claims since you just made them up, and international law has a horrible backlog of retroactively setting precedent for things made up on the internet. Deju vu, all over again. Facts bounce off your claims at a remarkable rate. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/543 "2010-12-08T22:02:05Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > If you had paid closer attention to what I was saying, you would have noticed that I was expressing a subjective personal opinion on the justifiability of escalatory military defenses in specific situations. > > See, this is the main reason why I ignore most of your posts. You tend to miss people’s points, twist their words, and, upon encountering a point that you cannot address, accuse them of erecting “straw men” (seriously, how many times have you used that phrase in this thread to avoid actual intellectual responses?). I’m not sure why you bother posting here if you are unwilling to engage people on the merits. > > Feel free to respond to this by making another straw man accusation. :rolleyes: Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it. He takes a very adversarial stance in great debates, its just his personality. It irritates a lot of people but you’ll get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/544 "2010-12-08T22:03:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I assumed you did, as this is a reasonable thing to do. Then can we proceed on the basis that I’m not a NK apologist or that I am trying to justify or excuse their actions. I am trying to correct the impression that NK made some sort of unprovoked attack targetting civilians. I don’t think the response was proportional but I think it was provoked. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/545 "2010-12-08T22:08:14Z")
“My argument is not an apologia for North Korea’s actions! I’m just trying to argue that their completely unprovoked act of indiscriminate aggression against both military targets and civilians… wasn’t. It’s totally different!” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/546 "2010-12-08T22:13:19Z")
I think you are being a bit unfair, Finn. After all, who is thinking of all those poor fish and marine mammals who were indiscriminately and aggressively attacked in an unbridled and unprovoked act of, er, unprovoked imperialistic and anti-environmentally friendly aggression? The North were simply responding in kind to such ecological capitalist running dog tactics! My guess is that they took several hours to reply to this unprovoked attack on the seas because they were carefully evaluating the numbers and types of friendly sea creatures harmed by the evil South. Not only that, there are rumors that the South Koreans, while they were firing, were watching South Park and screaming ‘FUUUCK YOU WHALE! FUUUCK YOU DOLPHIN!’ at the top of their lungs, even though they weren’t Japanese… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/547 "2010-12-08T22:30:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Then can we proceed on the basis that I’m not a NK apologist or that I am trying to justify or excuse their actions. I am trying to correct the impression that NK made some sort of unprovoked attack targetting civilians. > > I don’t think the response was proportional but I think it was provoked. Well, first you’d have to establish that the waters were North Korean (them just saying so isn’t enough), and that even if they were, how some splashes provokes a deadly response that was, at best, indifferent to civilians who could get killed in the process. I trust Israel need not be invoked again in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/548 "2010-12-08T22:34:31Z")
Mrs. Lovejoy: “What about the plankton?” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/549 "2010-12-08T22:47:49Z")
Something just occurred to me. Nork is slang for North Korean. For some reason, that’s always reminded me of the word [“Noid”](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jiveturkeyjives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/noid.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jiveturkeyjives.com/%3Fp%3D4019&usg=__tPHkKKqlrGkibHN_fHFSQr7ShJo=&h=696&w=697&sz=57&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UKVeXzoZQvx3HM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnoid%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1708%26bih%3D733%26tbs%3Disch:1,isz:m&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=357&ei=egkATd7DOsK78gaJ67S_Dw&oei=egkATd7DOsK78gaJ67S_Dw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0&tx=60&ty=43). An advertising campaign that was provocative to anybody who might be named Noid, especially if they were also crazy.[Therefore, Kenneth Noid’s hostage-taking was not an unprovoked act of a lunatic.](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,151193,00.html) Oh, and North Korea indiscriminately firing about 200 unguided rockets at a populated island after some SK shells (allegedly) fell in the open ocean that NK claims as its own was also not an unprovoked act of a lunatic nation. QED. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/550 "2010-12-08T22:50:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > “My argument is not an apologia for North Korea’s actions! I’m just trying to argue that their completely unprovoked act of indiscriminate aggression against both military targets and civilians… wasn’t. > It’s totally different!” What I see coming from the ones trying to find excuses for this NK violent episode is a tactic similar to what creationists use: teach the controversy. That way even if their position is a baseless one, the efforts to demand “equal time” are expected by them to lead many to assume that the truth lies in the middle. (Benefiting more the baseless position than the more supported one) In a situation where a despotic government does not even allow freedom of the press one has to give preference to the side that does. Are there still doubts? Then one checks outside sources that in the past demonstrated to be at odds even with the USA and SK, if after that the “teach the controversy” guys continue one then has to point and laugh at their attempts to prop up points that don’t even have a base. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645/551 "2010-12-08T23:14:41Z")
I could hand out even more warnings for personal comments and sniping, but plainly the topic is part of the problem. This thread is locked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/n-and-s-korea-firing-artillery-at-each-other/561645.md?page=27)