North Korea Attacks! Will they attack a US or South Korean ship in 2009?

What exactly constitutes an attack?

An attack would be any North Korean action construed as such by the mainstream media: shots or missiles fired, rocks thrown, ramming or attempting to ram, etc.

The first attack has occured... on the internet: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_cyber_attack

But that was not a ship that was attacked.

Obviously, it was meant as informational and humor, perhaps failing on both accounts.

OMG! we are all going to die. I didn't want to do this...but now I'm going to have to spend all my saved up piggy bank money on a fallout shelter. Damn it all to hell.

Sorry frogchop - my humor radar was off that day.

(October 14th, 2009) SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea warned South Korea of a possible naval clash Thursday, accusing Seoul of sending warships into its waters around their disputed western sea border. The South's "reckless military provocations" have created "such a serious situation that a naval clash may break out between the two sides in these waters," the North's navy said in a statement carried by the country's official Korean Central News Agency. North Korea has often issued similar warnings before, as it does not recognize the western sea border. The communist nation claims that the United Nations unilaterally drew the line at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, and that it should be redrawn further south.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/14/international/i215357D56.DTL

I saw an Asian guy vandalizing a tugboat down at the docks the other day - I think he may have been North Korean. Does that count?

North Korean, South Korean navies trade fire on disputed border
November 10, 2009 | Christian Science Monitor

North and South Korean naval forces exchanged fire in disputed waters off their west coast Tuesday, the first such incident in seven years. No South Korean casualties were reported, but the North Korean ship was badly damaged during the skirmish. Each navy is blaming the other for the incident, which analysts believe will heighten tensions between the two Koreas in the runup to US President Barack Obama's visit to the region, scheduled for mid-November.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1110/p99s01-duts.html

But it's important to note that the market asks whether North Korea will attack --that is, go on the offensive--and that doesn't appear to be the case here; an NK ship strayed south of a line of demarcation, and failed to stop when warned. At that time, the South Korean ship attacked by firing first; the NK shots were in defense, which in military terms doesn't qualify as an attack.

@sqlman -- According to the president of South Korea, the North Korean ship DID make a 'DIRECT ATTACK' on the South Korean vessel.

South Korea President Lee Myung-bak, after a meeting with security advisers, directed the military be firm but calm and not let the situation worsen, his office said. Prime Minister Chung Un-chan said the North Korean boat made a "direct attack" on the South Korean vessel but that the skirmish may also have been "accidental."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125782605421040551.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

The gunfight lasted about two minutes and marked the first time in seven years the two navies fired on each other. South Korea said it counted 15 bullet holes on its damaged vessel. No casualties were reported by either country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125782605421040551.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

South Korean military officials said the North Korean patrol boat crossed the maritime border known in the South as the Northern limit line, continued southward for more than one mile. The South Korean patrol boat broadcast five messages telling it to turn around and then fired a warning shot fired above it, they said. The North Korean boat then unloaded a barrage of gunfire on the South's patrol boat, the South's officials said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125782605421040551.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

@ sqlman -- In looking at the sequence of events mentioned above the South Koreans fired a warning shot which triggered the attack by the North Korean ship. The fact that South Korea fired a warning shot first should not negate the fact that North Korea was the first to actively and intentionally target (i.e. attack) a South Korean ship.

This market also makes no mention of who must attack who for settlement as YES.

In Comment #17 I meant to say that this market makes no mention of who must attack who FIRST -- for settlement as YES.

r u serious sqlman...no matter who initiated the skirmish the ships attacked each other, that is they fired on each other's ship as evidenced by the bullet holes in their ships...in comment #3 u made no mention of the fact that it had to be an un-provoked attack...i'm sure the south koreans on that ship feel they were attacked

@pics4d: Yes, I'm serious. The market asks whether whether North Korea will attack any South Korean ship. That didn't happen. And please read all of my comment #3: it begins with: "An attack would be any North Korean action construed as such by the mainstream media". If you or anyone else has an MSM article stating that the North attacked the South, please forward it.

Guys, a retaliatory firing is not an attack in either military strategy or game theory. If you're walking down the street some evening and a mugger jumps out of a dark alley and begins punching you, hitting that person back in self-defense is not considered an attack. An attack is an offensive move. Firing a warning shot is an offensive move. Firing back after being fired upon--as North Korea did--is a defensive move...and is therefore not an attack.

@sqlman -- I see your point of view and the logic behind it -- but -- I don't think such a strict and narrow interpretation of attack is implied in the question writers intent or specified in the settlement details. I'll just chalk this experience up as a $3,000 lesson in implied semantics. :-)

BS. With the sensitivities between NK and SK, you will never get an out and out definitive declaration that is not disputed or in question involving such an incident between the two sides. These incidents, by nature of the parties involved and where they occur, are always going to be disputed when it comes to who "attacked" who by your strict definition. You degrade your credibility as a question creator when you use overly strict interpretations in settlement decisions. Is a "counter-attack" not still a form of "attack?"