I wouldn’t call it a total waste of a perfectly good missile; it allows us to fine-tune our sensors to the infrared signature and radar cross-section of that type of missile so that our systems can more efficiently track and engage them when they do fire at us.
One wonders what the effect (if any) of this will be.
Will it help the hardliners in America? Probably.
Will it push Japan and America closer together? Definitely. Will it divide or unite the Americans and South Koreans? What do you think?
Actually, those “hardliners” in the US are downplaying it just as much as Japan and Korea. I think the quote was “they do tests like this often.” What I have a problem with is news outlets trying to link the sparrow-type missile firing to last week’s entrapment by a certian junior senator from new york who’s pushing for direct dialouge with the norks ala ‘94….
It is either: A) a bonified test of military equipment or B) a prescribed response to a frustrated political situation aimed at getting the US to do what NK wants it to.
Hey KimcheeGI, haven’t checked your blog in a while, hope you’re doing well. The missile, if it was a silkworm type: “The Silkworm has a 1-ton explosive warhead and a range of about 50 miles. It flies a sea-skimming horizontal course, using an on-board radar guidance system that homes in randomly on the first -or biggest - major ship, building or other target that it picks up.” From an AP story. So it can’t carry a nuke(?), that seems to be the case here.
Actually, I hate the attempt by some Korean commies, I am sure you are not one, to change names. If that area has been historically called “the Sea of Japan”, then let us just accept it. If it is internationalized, then that is what we have to use. No reason to invent a new word and insist on it as if to change history. Having two names for everything only results in confusion.
The same mentality goes into naming international summits. Korean commies insist on putting Korea before other countries, “NorthKorea-U.S. meeting” for example, and tries to avoid “the U.S.-NK conference”. Who cares? Is the name so important compared to what comes out of it? This insistence only satisfies those who like to attach meaning to insignificant matters and those who starved for crumbs of respect.
Let’s just accept the international standard. I am very comfortable with “the Sea of Japan”.
I work at Korea’s Maritime Affairs Ministry, whose duty it is to promote the dual use of East Sea/Sea of Japan, particularly at international conferences. So Baduk, you’re saying my bosses and co-workers are commies?
Actually, I know a couple who probably are. But this is a free country.
Anyway, the campaign to change the name seems silly, until you consider that Japan could realistically use the name in future to bolster claims over the sea in question, and its resources - “It’s our sea, look at the name.”
(Aside)Michael, thanks feel free to stop by anytime(/Aside)
Doing a little more reading, it could be a Seersuker, which is “commonly [and improperly] referred to in the media as the ‘Silkworm,’” according to the FAS site. Also, during the Gulf War II build up in 2002, Newsmax had this to say about the [improperly] referred to ‘Silkworm:’
The Chinese Silkworm missile, however, is normally equipped with up to one ton of high explosives, and could easily be modified for chemical or nuclear warheads. Iraq reportedly modified a number of Silkworm missiles to carry nerve gas warheads. U.N. inspection teams are expected to closely monitor Silkworm missile sites.
In addition to the modified Silkworm missiles, Iraq has modified a number of manned aircraft to operate as unmanned cruise missiles. Iraq reportedly modified a Czech Delfin jet trainer and a MiG-23 Flogger to operate as unmanned cruise missiles equipped with chemical warheads. Both the MiG-23 and the Delfin have the capability to be launched from short ramps using rocket boosters.
A little side note here, but MF the idea that Japan could use the name Sea of Japan to bolster its claim to the sea is paranoid at best. International laws regarding bodies of water and who has what rights are fairly clear and won’t be influenced by names. Also East Sea is no better then Sea of Japan because what is that sea East of? Korea not Japan. So calling it East Sea is just as much South Korea trying to claim the sea as Japan is by calling it Sea of Japan. Plus there are many examples of bodies of water being named after countries, or former countries, that no one complains about, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, Persian Gulf, etc.
Main Entry: bo?·na fide [two separate words, when used correctly they are taken "as is" from the original Latin]
Pronunciation: ‘bO-n-”fId [the source of your phoneticized spelling].
Also: ‘b?¤-,or “bO-n-’fI-dE, -’fI-d. [Several different pronunciations are possible and all are evidently correct.]
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin, literally, in good faith
Date: 1788
1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit
2 : made with earnest intent : SINCERE
3 : neither specious nor counterfeit : GENUINE
synonym see AUTHENTIC
Not meant as a criticism; if you speak Korean your language skills in that area are infinitely superior to what mine will ever be.
I’m pretty sure “bonified” is not a word; if it were one though, it would seem to imply “calcification” or maybe a hardening of the arteries, an appropriate analogy indeed for NorK conduct.
Maybe in another 50 years the Japanese/Korean governments can get their acts straight and call it the “Sea of Friendship.”
I personally think it’s ok to call it the Sea of Japan, since it’s not like we see armed French students demanding name change of the English Channel. Or a mob of Texans demanding that their large body of water be called Gulf of Texas. Korean people are taking things a bit too far with this East Sea vs. Sea of Japan dispute.
Nanthaniel: Don’t call it the “Persian Gulf” to an inhabitant of KSA or one of the Gulf States. They will insist that it’s “the Arabian Gulf”, indeed you will see may see it listed this way on some English language maps.
Do you remember the missile that hit a shopping mall in Kuwait 29 March 2003? Our Patriots were focused on Scud-type ballistic missiles, which fall from the sky rather than skim the terrain. Our Avengers, Stingers, and Linebackers were too far forward to protect Kuwait City. This test reminds us not to ignore the cruise missile threat, and that anti-ship missiles can be modified for use as land-attack cruise missiles.
It has come to my attention that there is some confusion regarding the appelation of various bodies of water. To avoid future confusion, the “East Sea” or “Sea of J*p*n” will henceforth be known as the “East Songun Sea of the DPRK”. Also, the “Persian Gulf” will be known as the “Arabian Gulf of the DPRK”, and the “Gulf of Texas” will be known as the “Texan People’s Revolutionary Songun Gulf of the DPRK”.
Thank you.
Marmot, thanks for providing a venue for education. Today I’ve learned what bona fide and philistine really mean, thanks to Paul H., as well as a kindly math lesson from Nora.
Kudos to Charlie for the excellent research. I was thinking this was the usual silkworm/seersucker launch, but it may be much more. I imagine fitting a cruise missile with a small plutonium weapon would be a heck of a way to get one’s neighbor’s attention. Considering the range of these missiles, however, the blast would also affect the folks launching it.
I personally think it?€™s ok to call it the Sea of Japan, since it?€™s not like we see armed French students demanding name change of the English Channel.
Don’t the French call the English Channel “La Manche”?
The French are too busy protesting les Americains and getting upset about losing their French language to English vocabulary.
The French may call it La Manche but they don’t tell Englishmen what to call it. Is there another example of a nation insisting on a foreign language place name? Isn’t that like me saying I want Koreans to call me an Amerigook?
North Korea fired a missile into the East Sea whose range is presumed to be ranging from 100 to 120 kilometers, and it is known to be a KN-02, an upgraded version of the Soviet (Russian) SS21,” Kim Sung-il, a senior official at Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a closed-door parliamentary session, according to lawmakers who attended the session.
He said the missile launch is presumed to be for improving the performance of North Korea’s surface-to-surface missiles and not attacking another country or mounting nuclear or chemical warheads onto the missile.
The KN-02 is known to be a portable surface-to-surface short-range ballistic missile, and its range is more expanded than that of the SS21 and its accuracy has been improved.
The missile, if fired from near the inter-Korean border, can strike the city of Pyeongtaek, which is scheduled to host most American soldiers stationed in South Korea in few years, in addition to thousands of troops currently stationed there.
Thorin wrote:
The French may call it La Manche but they don?€™t tell Englishmen what to call it. Is there another example of a nation insisting on a foreign language place name? Isn?€™t that like me saying I want Koreans to call me an Amerigook?
I asked some British and continental European folks about the English Channel/La Manche issue in another forum. This is a paste-together of the relevant response.
AMERICAN:
I thought they always called it La Manche (”The Sleeve”) for the shape it resembles on a map.
BRIT:
That’s right. The french *hate* the fact that it’s called the english channel and refer to it by their traditional name whenever they can get away with it.
The naming of things as other things isn’t a particularly french thing, as Robin [a German geography major] pointed out, but the French are very insistent about this particular name. They consider it a national insult to call it “english” when only half of it belongs to us. [emphasis mine]
kushibo wrote:
the French are very insistent about this particular name. They consider it a national insult to call it ?€œenglish?€? when only half of it belongs to us.
so, to the list of europe-related monikers for korea (e.g., ‘the irish of asia’ and ‘the jews of asia’) we should now add ‘the french of asia’?
You know with all this talk ..if NK did this and NK did that.
The only country that gets away with using WMD is the US. They bombed the shit out of the North and other places , it is no wonder the North wants protection. After all look what happened to Iraq , they had no WMD so it was invaded. That is the real lesson from the invasion.
Korea News via Google
32 Comments
Agreed this is getting very old. Even older than SK always “downplaying” everything NK does.
SK downplays NK threat to turn Seoul into a ball of fire.
SK downplays NK shutting down nuclear reactor.
SK downplays NK reprocessing uranium/plutonium.
SK downplays NK announcement it has a nuclear weapon.
SK downplays NK nuclear test
SK downplays NK launching nuclear weapon at SK/Japan/US.
I wouldn’t call it a total waste of a perfectly good missile; it allows us to fine-tune our sensors to the infrared signature and radar cross-section of that type of missile so that our systems can more efficiently track and engage them when they do fire at us.
One wonders what the effect (if any) of this will be.
Will it help the hardliners in America? Probably.
Will it push Japan and America closer together? Definitely. Will it divide or unite the Americans and South Koreans? What do you think?
Actually, those “hardliners” in the US are downplaying it just as much as Japan and Korea. I think the quote was “they do tests like this often.” What I have a problem with is news outlets trying to link the sparrow-type missile firing to last week’s entrapment by a certian junior senator from new york who’s pushing for direct dialouge with the norks ala ‘94….
Uh, guess the nork version would be a silkworm (Chinese short range missile), not a sparrow (US short range Missile family).
It is either: A) a bonified test of military equipment or B) a prescribed response to a frustrated political situation aimed at getting the US to do what NK wants it to.
“Mark” above puts things in perspective. But I wonder… is it really that good a missle, in terms of technology?
Sonda . . .
Hey KimcheeGI, haven’t checked your blog in a while, hope you’re doing well. The missile, if it was a silkworm type: “The Silkworm has a 1-ton explosive warhead and a range of about 50 miles. It flies a sea-skimming horizontal course, using an on-board radar guidance system that homes in randomly on the first -or biggest - major ship, building or other target that it picks up.” From an AP story. So it can’t carry a nuke(?), that seems to be the case here.
Wait, where is the Sea of Japan?
Yep it can’t carry a nuke… or that’s what the US gov. just stated.
Tarion,
Actually, I hate the attempt by some Korean commies, I am sure you are not one, to change names. If that area has been historically called “the Sea of Japan”, then let us just accept it. If it is internationalized, then that is what we have to use. No reason to invent a new word and insist on it as if to change history. Having two names for everything only results in confusion.
The same mentality goes into naming international summits. Korean commies insist on putting Korea before other countries, “NorthKorea-U.S. meeting” for example, and tries to avoid “the U.S.-NK conference”. Who cares? Is the name so important compared to what comes out of it? This insistence only satisfies those who like to attach meaning to insignificant matters and those who starved for crumbs of respect.
Let’s just accept the international standard. I am very comfortable with “the Sea of Japan”.
I work at Korea’s Maritime Affairs Ministry, whose duty it is to promote the dual use of East Sea/Sea of Japan, particularly at international conferences. So Baduk, you’re saying my bosses and co-workers are commies?
Actually, I know a couple who probably are. But this is a free country.
Anyway, the campaign to change the name seems silly, until you consider that Japan could realistically use the name in future to bolster claims over the sea in question, and its resources - “It’s our sea, look at the name.”
(Aside)Michael, thanks feel free to stop by anytime(/Aside)
Doing a little more reading, it could be a Seersuker, which is “commonly [and improperly] referred to in the media as the ‘Silkworm,’” according to the FAS site. Also, during the Gulf War II build up in 2002, Newsmax had this to say about the [improperly] referred to ‘Silkworm:’
The Chinese Silkworm missile, however, is normally equipped with up to one ton of high explosives, and could easily be modified for chemical or nuclear warheads. Iraq reportedly modified a number of Silkworm missiles to carry nerve gas warheads. U.N. inspection teams are expected to closely monitor Silkworm missile sites.
In addition to the modified Silkworm missiles, Iraq has modified a number of manned aircraft to operate as unmanned cruise missiles. Iraq reportedly modified a Czech Delfin jet trainer and a MiG-23 Flogger to operate as unmanned cruise missiles equipped with chemical warheads. Both the MiG-23 and the Delfin have the capability to be launched from short ramps using rocket boosters.
A little side note here, but MF the idea that Japan could use the name Sea of Japan to bolster its claim to the sea is paranoid at best. International laws regarding bodies of water and who has what rights are fairly clear and won’t be influenced by names. Also East Sea is no better then Sea of Japan because what is that sea East of? Korea not Japan. So calling it East Sea is just as much South Korea trying to claim the sea as Japan is by calling it Sea of Japan. Plus there are many examples of bodies of water being named after countries, or former countries, that no one complains about, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, Persian Gulf, etc.
James:
Main Entry: bo?·na fide [two separate words, when used correctly they are taken "as is" from the original Latin]
Pronunciation: ‘bO-n-”fId [the source of your phoneticized spelling].
Also: ‘b?¤-,or “bO-n-’fI-dE, -’fI-d. [Several different pronunciations are possible and all are evidently correct.]
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin, literally, in good faith
Date: 1788
1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit
2 : made with earnest intent : SINCERE
3 : neither specious nor counterfeit : GENUINE
synonym see AUTHENTIC
Not meant as a criticism; if you speak Korean your language skills in that area are infinitely superior to what mine will ever be.
I’m pretty sure “bonified” is not a word; if it were one though, it would seem to imply “calcification” or maybe a hardening of the arteries, an appropriate analogy indeed for NorK conduct.
Maybe in another 50 years the Japanese/Korean governments can get their acts straight and call it the “Sea of Friendship.”
I personally think it’s ok to call it the Sea of Japan, since it’s not like we see armed French students demanding name change of the English Channel. Or a mob of Texans demanding that their large body of water be called Gulf of Texas. Korean people are taking things a bit too far with this East Sea vs. Sea of Japan dispute.
Nanthaniel: Don’t call it the “Persian Gulf” to an inhabitant of KSA or one of the Gulf States. They will insist that it’s “the Arabian Gulf”, indeed you will see may see it listed this way on some English language maps.
Do you remember the missile that hit a shopping mall in Kuwait 29 March 2003? Our Patriots were focused on Scud-type ballistic missiles, which fall from the sky rather than skim the terrain. Our Avengers, Stingers, and Linebackers were too far forward to protect Kuwait City. This test reminds us not to ignore the cruise missile threat, and that anti-ship missiles can be modified for use as land-attack cruise missiles.
It has come to my attention that there is some confusion regarding the appelation of various bodies of water. To avoid future confusion, the “East Sea” or “Sea of J*p*n” will henceforth be known as the “East Songun Sea of the DPRK”. Also, the “Persian Gulf” will be known as the “Arabian Gulf of the DPRK”, and the “Gulf of Texas” will be known as the “Texan People’s Revolutionary Songun Gulf of the DPRK”.
Thank you.
Don’t mess with Texas, you outhouse of tarantulas!
Paul, I figure that Persian Gulf should be acceptable to all as once you leave the Persian Gulf you enter the Arabian Sea.
Ahem ahem, “outpost of tranny”, *please*!
Marmot, thanks for providing a venue for education. Today I’ve learned what bona fide and philistine really mean, thanks to Paul H., as well as a kindly math lesson from Nora.
Kudos to Charlie for the excellent research. I was thinking this was the usual silkworm/seersucker launch, but it may be much more. I imagine fitting a cruise missile with a small plutonium weapon would be a heck of a way to get one’s neighbor’s attention. Considering the range of these missiles, however, the blast would also affect the folks launching it.
Huh? What missle?
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....20014.html
I personally think it?€™s ok to call it the Sea of Japan, since it?€™s not like we see armed French students demanding name change of the English Channel.
Don’t the French call the English Channel “La Manche”?
The French are too busy protesting les Americains and getting upset about losing their French language to English vocabulary.
The French may call it La Manche but they don’t tell Englishmen what to call it. Is there another example of a nation insisting on a foreign language place name? Isn’t that like me saying I want Koreans to call me an Amerigook?
Thorin,
How about the Greeks telling Macedonia (formerly part of Yugoslavia) what they can call themselves?
The situation and repurcussions there make Korea’s East Sea business look like a friendly parlor room discussion.
I’m sure that the international naming organizations have a few other examples.
Back to the missile:
North Korea fired a missile into the East Sea whose range is presumed to be ranging from 100 to 120 kilometers, and it is known to be a KN-02, an upgraded version of the Soviet (Russian) SS21,” Kim Sung-il, a senior official at Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a closed-door parliamentary session, according to lawmakers who attended the session.
He said the missile launch is presumed to be for improving the performance of North Korea’s surface-to-surface missiles and not attacking another country or mounting nuclear or chemical warheads onto the missile.
The KN-02 is known to be a portable surface-to-surface short-range ballistic missile, and its range is more expanded than that of the SS21 and its accuracy has been improved.
The missile, if fired from near the inter-Korean border, can strike the city of Pyeongtaek, which is scheduled to host most American soldiers stationed in South Korea in few years, in addition to thousands of troops currently stationed there.
Thorin wrote:
The French may call it La Manche but they don?€™t tell Englishmen what to call it. Is there another example of a nation insisting on a foreign language place name? Isn?€™t that like me saying I want Koreans to call me an Amerigook?
I asked some British and continental European folks about the English Channel/La Manche issue in another forum. This is a paste-together of the relevant response.
AMERICAN:
I thought they always called it La Manche (”The Sleeve”) for the shape it resembles on a map.
BRIT:
That’s right. The french *hate* the fact that it’s called the english channel and refer to it by their traditional name whenever they can get away with it.
The naming of things as other things isn’t a particularly french thing, as Robin [a German geography major] pointed out, but the French are very insistent about this particular name. They consider it a national insult to call it “english” when only half of it belongs to us.
[emphasis mine]
kushibo wrote:
the French are very insistent about this particular name. They consider it a national insult to call it ?€œenglish?€? when only half of it belongs to us.
so, to the list of europe-related monikers for korea (e.g., ‘the irish of asia’ and ‘the jews of asia’) we should now add ‘the french of asia’?
You know with all this talk ..if NK did this and NK did that.
The only country that gets away with using WMD is the US. They bombed the shit out of the North and other places , it is no wonder the North wants protection. After all look what happened to Iraq , they had no WMD so it was invaded. That is the real lesson from the invasion.