- This topic has 2 voices and 1 reply.
-
Posts
-
This may belong in some other category but I figured I would put it here since it is by nature a political question. I read this article today about the sinking of the South Korean Corvette. Here is the quote that got me:
After talks with South Korean leaders Wednesday, Clinton told reporters the attack that killed 46 sailors was an “unacceptable provocation” by the North and the “international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond.”
Sinking a ship and killing 46 of its crew is only a provocation? ??? If that is the case what then is the modern definition for an Act of War? I certainly don't know. Maybe somebody else does. I figured at a minimum sinking the ship of another nations navy rises to the standard of an Act of War.
Perhaps the fact that it wasn't followed up by further attacks made it an “isolated” incident rather than an “act of war”. At least, this is what could be argued. I'm unaware of the actual circumstances surrounding the sinking….was it sunk after both sides exchanged fire, did the South fire first? I'm not trying to defend North Korea's cause here but the context could have influenced her wording choice.Then again, I'm sure that the Obama Administration really doesn't want to get into a war with North Korea and so by using toned down language - even if it's inaccurate - would not give Kim a reason to get made and become even more aggressive.
According to US law TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > ? 2331 Definitions, an Act of War is
(4) the term ?act of war? means any act occurring in the course of?(A) declared war;(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
According to reports, the ship was sunk by a torpedo in a sneak attack. Probably one of North Korea's diesel boats.Wikipedia actually has good article about the principle of Casus belli
