Recently, this subject came up tangentially in a now-locked GD thread, but didn’t have a chance to be properly addressed. I also posted this in a pit thread, but due to the nature of the thread it wasn’t ever debated.
I’d like to keep this tightly confined to its scope and without undue rancor, so if anybody feels the need to debate related issues other than whether or not the rocket attack was a war crime regardless of its ‘provocation’, to respond harshly or to allege less-than-honest conduct, I would ask that they please use the Pit thread that we have open for that purpose.
I may, possibly, have made errors in fact or logic on this subject, but I haven’t caught any. I also know that CEP is not quite as simple as I’ve presented it, and there is a lot of imprecision and many unaddressed variables in discussing the statistical trajectory of the roughly 200 rockets that were fired. Please, if you can, fact-check this and chew on the logic and see if it does or does not stand to reason that North Korea’s attack on Yeonpeyong Island was a war crime.
[ol]
[li]The evidence points to North Korea using a six truck BM-21 MRL battery to attack Yeonpyeong Island[/li][li]Roughly 1/6 of the rockets fired scored direct hits and/or glancing hits on homes sufficient to destroy them, and virtually every building on the island suffered some form of damage.[/li][li] The BM-21 has a very large CEP and is totally unsuited for attacking point-targets.[/li][li]In point of fact, “the system cannot be used in situations that call for pinpoint precision, unless one is ready to cover the surroundings of the target with fire.”[/li][li]While I have been unable to find the specific CEP for the BM-21, an upgraded rocket that is slated to replace the BM-21 and has increased accuracy has a 1-2% CEP. As such, I will be using 2% as the CEP for the BM-21, with the caveat that it is most likely an underestimation. [/li][li]Yeonpyeong Island is roughly 15 km from the North Korean launch site which rained roughly 200 missiles down on the island. (tagged at location #4 in the first link) [/li][li]2% of 15km is 300 meters. The CEP represents the radius of a circle in which 50% of the artillery will land. Yeonpyeong Island is roughly 5 square kilometers in area (link #6). The area of the circle formed by the CEP (again, likely underestimated as per link 5) is about 3 square kilometers, or over half of the area of the Island. Roughly 50% of the approximately 200 BM-21 rockets that NK launched would have landed within that circle, with the other 50% landing outside of it. [/li][li]This means that, in pragmatic terms, it was functionally impossible for North Korea to target anything in specific on the Island or discriminate civilian from military targets. [/li][li]Likewise, from the fact that roughly 200 rockets were fired and roughly 200 rockets impacted the island (see link 1), we know that the center of the circle was somewhere close to the center of the island, as opposed to being centered on South Korea’s military location, or else a significant number of the roughly 200 rockets NK launched would have fallen into the ocean instead of on the land. [/li][li]South Korea has had the Rome Statute in effect since 2003. South Korea’s territory is where the attack occurred. Under Article 12, paragraph 2, subsection A of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute those responsible for actions in violation of the RS that are directed against the State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred, even if the violating nation is not a signatory [/li][li]Under the RS, war crimes include but are not limited to:[/li]- Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
-Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
[li] I would also argue that by launching weapons that were indiscriminate and whose area of effect included virtually the entire population of the island, NK also run afoul of:[/li]-Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
-Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
[/ol]
As such: North Korea’s recent attack on South Korea was an indiscriminate attack on civilians and a war crime.
QED