# North Korea's recent attack on Yeonpeyong Island was a war crime **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917 "2010-12-12T20:45:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/41 "2010-12-15T06:03:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > While you can argue whether or not they are in a state of war the act that Kim Jong IL committed was just that. He’s crazy and his behavior is getting worse and his toys are getting bigger. Are you arguing that they are not in a state of war? From a moral perspective you may view the deaths as premeditated murder, but legally, they are not. KJI may seem unpredictable, but his behavior is hardly crazy. It’s carefully constructed to be as disruptive as possible to the West, ROK and Japan, without upsetting China too much. I agree that the situation in the DPRk is crazy, and even more than that, absolutely reprehensible. But to think that KJI’s actions are the result of a crazy person and are not the result of some sort of calculation on his part is underestimating him. Crazy more aptly describes his son, caught sneaking in Japan a few years back on DR passports to visit Disneyland ---
**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 15, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/42 "2010-12-15T06:06:11Z")
> [@Amasia](#): > > There is no evidence that civilians were the object of the attack. There is no reason to think that the DPRK was targeting civilians. I’d be interested to see otherwise. AP1 has been addressed, and its rationale discussed and cited, in that the use of indiscriminate weapons is considered a deliberate attack on civilians if they’re hit by the attack. The Grad rocket is an indiscriminate weapon when used in a situation such as on Yeonpeyong Island. The Grad rocket was used in the attack on Yeonpeyong Island. Therefore, under AP1, NK can be considered to have directed attacks at civilians due to their use of indiscriminate weaponry on Yeonpeyong Island. > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Is there anyone outside North Korea who doesn’t think it was an unprovoked attack? At least one Doper from the previous GD thread (just Contorl-F) for provoked, but that’s best addressed in another thread please. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/43 "2010-12-15T07:35:21Z")
> [@Amasia](#): > > Are you arguing that they are not in a state of war? > > From a moral perspective you may view the deaths as premeditated murder, but legally, they are not. > > KJI may seem unpredictable, but his behavior is hardly crazy. It’s carefully constructed to be as disruptive as possible to the West, ROK and Japan, without upsetting China too much. I agree that the situation in the DPRk is crazy, and even more than that, absolutely reprehensible. But to think that KJI’s actions are the result of a crazy person and are not the result of some sort of calculation on his part is underestimating him. > > Crazy more aptly describes his son, caught sneaking in Japan a few years back on DR passports to visit Disneyland I think kidnapping a movie director to make a movie trumps a normal desire to have fun at an amusement park. As far as the deliberate act of firing on civilians in an unprovoked attack goes I’d call it murder. ---
**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 15, 2010, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/44 "2010-12-15T07:42:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > At least one Doper from the previous GD thread (just Contorl-F) for provoked, but that’s best addressed in another thread please. Damn, that’s a weird cut and paste error. But yah, most people agree that it was unprovoked, one or two thought that it was a provoked attack. But whether or not it was a provoked attack is pretty much irrelevant within the scope of this thread. We have NK’s statement on what they believe the ‘provocation’ for military action was, and what the concrete benefit they expected from attacking Yeonpeyong Island. ---
**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 15, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/45 "2010-12-15T16:59:31Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Is there anyone outside North Korea who doesn’t think it was an unprovoked attack? Yeah, there are several people on this baord who think that conducting military exercises in disputed territory might be provocation. Not necessarily that the reaction was justified or proportional but that the South provoked the North. Here is a map of the area with the area between the red and blue lines being the disputed territory (this is where that South korean ship was sunk as well). > **[Maps: Shelling of Yeonpyeong Island by North Korea - Map - NYTimes.com](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/23/world/asia/1123-korea.html?ref=asia)** > > The island that was shelled by North Korea on Tuesday lies in disputed waters. Here is the wiki article on teh event. Some people think that NK was looking for a reason to do something like this in order to restart the 6 party talks and get more food aid and that South korea was happy to oblige them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/46 "2010-12-15T17:42:36Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Is there anyone outside North Korea who doesn’t think it was an unprovoked attack? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah, there are several people on this baord who think that conducting military exercises in disputed territory might be provocation. Not necessarily that the reaction was justified or proportional but that the South provoked the North. As **Finn** has noted, the issue of provocation is separate from the issue of war crimes. Either start a new thread or go back to the Pit thread to hammer that out for the umpteenth time, please. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/47 "2010-12-15T18:08:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Pride has nothing to do with it. He is mentally ill and has continued on a path to war. SK has to weigh the reality of a nuclear war with a crazy man. You’re right that he’s ill, but perhaps we confuse fantaticism with dementia? I see Kim doing nothing different from a man who wants to flaunt the small amount of power he has and pushing enemy countries to the limits of their tolerance. His cult is just a way he exerts control over people. Lots of cult leaders have been found perfectly sane enough to go to prison. If you ask me, I think he knows exactly what he’s doing The man’s dying and losing power, he has to show some strength to the military and prop up his successor. No wonder he’s being more daring and brazen with his attacks, but I don’t believe he’s going to commit suicide by nuking SK. Why hasn’t he done it before? He’s had the power to do it for years. Why now? I think his health and successor plays a huge role in that ---
**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 15, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/48 "2010-12-15T18:13:43Z")
Please, discussions on NK’s leadership or mental health are also way beyond the scope here. ---
**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 15, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/49 "2010-12-15T18:16:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > As **Finn** has noted, the issue of provocation is separate from the issue of war crimes. > > Either start a new thread or go back to the Pit thread to hammer that out for the umpteenth time, please. > > [/Modding] Sorry, I can’t read Finn’s posts, I have him on ignore. If the rule is that we cannot bring up old issues on new threads I will try to avoid doing so in the future. Or more accurately, I will try to refrain from responding to others who bring them up. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/50 "2010-12-15T19:31:50Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > AP1 has been addressed, and its rationale discussed and cited, in that the use of indiscriminate weapons is considered a deliberate attack on civilians if they’re hit by the attack. The Grad rocket is an indiscriminate weapon when used in a situation such as on Yeonpeyong Island. The Grad rocket was used in the attack on Yeonpeyong Island. Therefore, under AP1, NK can be considered to have directed attacks at civilians due to their use of indiscriminate weaponry on Yeonpeyong Island. > > At least one Doper from the previous GD thread (just Contorl-F) for provoked, but that’s best addressed in another thread please. I know you stated the weapon was indiscriminate, and laid out some reasons which could support that. Was there an additional discussion or findings that are in another thread? ---
**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 15, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/51 "2010-12-15T19:53:24Z")
What exactly are you requesting? Cites have been provided for the Grad’s inability to hit point-targets and for the reasoning under AP1 and the RS whereby weaponry that cannot be directed at a specific military objective is indiscriminate and that, therefore, collateral damage resulting from its use is equivalent to deliberate attack on civilians. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/52 "2010-12-15T20:02:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sorry, I can’t read Finn’s posts, I have him on ignore. > > If the rule is that we cannot bring up old issues on new threads I will try to avoid doing so in the future. Or more accurately, I will try to refrain from responding to others who bring them up. There is no rule against bringing up old issues on new threads. However, it is not wise to bring up an issue that has been beaten into the ground in a thread that was closed due to the personal hostility raised while beating to death that issue. It is particularly unappropriate to do so in a thread in which it will be a hijack that the OP has asked be avoided. It **is** [against the rules to identify posters on one’s Ignore list](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697065#post7697065). (And it is a bit unseemly to choose to participate in a thread when one has placed the OP on Ignore so that one cannot posibly see the relevant remarks regarding the thread topic.) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/53 "2010-12-15T20:13:06Z")
I keep meaning to reply and getting distracted by work. Pshaw! There’s a lot I wanted to respond to, but just to keep this short: your citation of the Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute gave several examples of “indiscriminate” weapons. They are: V-2 (4.5 km CEP), biological warfare agents, poisoning of water, free-floating balloons with explosives attached, possibily (but not certainly) SCUD B missiles fired at Israel (1-2 km CEP), and possibly booby traps. I’m sorry, but if these are the definition of “indiscriminate,” then a BM21 just doesn’t fit the bill. These weapons are less accurate by orders of magnitude. There is a big difference between the prohibition on the use of indiscriminate weapons and what you seem to be arguing, which seems to be that international law prohibits attacks in populated areas unless the weapons used are precision-guided. That’s not what your cites say. In fact, another one of your cites state: “The relative accuracy of this system and the number of rockets each vehicle is able to quickly bring to bear on an enemy target make it effective, especially at shorter ranges.” A 300 meter CEP seems to be not exceptional. The Mk45 naval gun used by American ships is of similar accuracy. Unguided artillery seems to be somewhere in the 150 meter CEP area. Your attempts to make the BM21 out as being especially crude just aren’t holding water with me. ---
**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 15, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/54 "2010-12-15T20:39:23Z")
Those weapons aren’t the definition of indiscriminate, they’re clear examples. And yes, a barrage (you quoted the part about how volume of fire factors in) can hit targets at _short_ range. And I have provided cites that say that the Grad is incapable of attacks on point-targets and that they will cover the area around the target with fire. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/55 "2010-12-15T20:53:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Those weapons aren’t the definition of indiscriminate, they’re clear examples. If you ask someone for examples of big things, and I am told that the Pentagon is big, Mount Everest is big, the USS Missouri is big, and the Burj Khalifa is big; I can’t the make the claim that a 46" plasma screen TV qualifies as big. If the examples had included unguided 155mm artillery as an “indiscriminate” weapon, you’d have an excellent point that the BM-21 is just as inaccurate. But that’s not among the examples you have cited. > [@](#): > > And I have provided cites that say that the Grad is incapable of attacks on point-targets and that they will cover the area around the target with fire. The standard for the law is indiscriminate. Being incapable of attacks on point-targets means to me that it is not a precision guided weapon. In my view, you have constructed this point of your argument around a false dichotomy that forces a weapon to be either precision guided or indiscriminate. I do not agree with this false dilemma. Repeating your citations does nothing to address my criticism. The BM-21 is not a precision guided weapon, nor is it an indiscriminate weapon. ---
**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 15, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/56 "2010-12-15T21:05:43Z")
No. The standard of the law is that weapons which can not be directed at specific targets or aimed exactly, are indiscriminate. I have provided citations that prove that the Grad falls under this category. Even your own attempted refutation relied on the fact that you can hit a target at short range largely by sheer volume of fire. Repeating the facts outlined in my cites directly refutes your objections as it shows what the actual standards are and how they relate to the Grad’s combat profile. If you claim that the Grad isn’t indiscriminate in the context of NK’s recent attack because other things are more indiscriminate, or what have you, that doesn’t address the actual facts. There is a very clear legal delineation between weaponry which can be directed at a target and that which can not. I have not in created it, and it is not fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/57 "2010-12-15T21:37:55Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No. The standard of the law is that weapons which can not be directed at specific targets or aimed exactly, are indiscriminate. And the examples of such weapons are what I quoted. You aren’t giving credit to the context of what you are quoting, as I shall again address elsewhere. > [@](#): > > I have provided citations that prove that the Grad falls under this category. You have provided many citations to many different things. Did any of the citations specifically call out the BM-21 or a comparable weapon as being an example of a weapon that falls under this category? I read nearly all your cites, but I can’t rule out that I missed something. > [@](#): > > Even your own attempted refutation relied on the fact that you can hit a target at short range largely by sheer volume of fire. No, it doesn’t “rely” on that fact. My disagreement relies on the examples of weapons that are considered indiscriminate, and pointing out that the BM-21 is nothing like those weapons. Again, if I ask someone what a “fast car” is, and I’m told it is a car that can move at a high rate of speed, such as a Ferrari, a Porsche, or a Bugatti; those examples are important to explaining what a “high rate of speed” is. I then cannot claim that my VW Jetta is also a fast car, because it is nowhere near being in the same category as the examples. The examples listed of indiscriminate weapons are those which, frankly, the attacker has no freakin’ clue what they’re going to land. I think an attacker using a BM-21 has a fairly reasonable idea where they are going to land, at least within a few hundred meters. If you have some new citations of law which would state unguided artillery as an example of an indiscriminate weapon, please provide them. Also, if you have a map which shows where the rockets landed in relation to military targets vs. civilian areas, that would be interesting as well. I haven’t come across that yet. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/58 "2010-12-15T22:03:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If you have some new citations of law which would state unguided artillery as an example of an indiscriminate weapon, please provide them. > > Also, if you have a map which shows where the rockets landed in relation to military targets vs. civilian areas, that would be interesting as well. I haven’t come across that yet. None of this is necessary because NK was not under attack. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/59 "2010-12-15T22:21:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > None of this is necessary because NK was not under attack. Go back and read my post #22, specifically the second paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917/60 "2010-12-15T22:53:25Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No. The standard of the law is that weapons which can not be directed at specific targets or aimed exactly, are indiscriminate. I have provided citations that prove that the Grad falls under this category. Even your own attempted refutation relied on the fact that you can hit a target at short range largely by sheer volume of fire. Repeating the facts outlined in my cites directly refutes your objections as it shows what the actual standards are and how they relate to the Grad’s combat profile. If you claim that the Grad isn’t indiscriminate in the context of NK’s recent attack because other things are more indiscriminate, or what have you, that doesn’t address the actual facts. > > There is a very clear legal delineation between weaponry which can be directed at a target and that which can not. I have not in created it, and it is not fallacious. No weapon in the world can be aimed exactly. Even anti-personnel mines are not necessarily indiscriminate. You are attributing a different meaning to the term indiscriminate then it is generally understood to have in this context. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-koreas-recent-attack-on-yeonpeyong-island-was-a-war-crime/563917.md?page=4)