"A Naval Blockade Is the Best Option to Cut Off North Korea"

Retired Admiral James Stavrides, A Naval Blockade Is the Best Option to Cut Off North Korea:

The fact is, the only way to keep the Kim regime from violating UN sanctions would be a stringent naval blockade. While a full-on blockade would require a Security Council resolution, it would be possible for the U.S. to immediately start putting in place the rudiments of a comprehensive inspection regime on the high seas, which could be easily adapted over time as more allies, partners and ultimately geopolitical competitors like China and Russia can be persuaded to sign on. Indeed, the Trump administration has already been thinking along these lines.

Such a blockade would serve three key purposes: definitively cutting off North Korea’s access to oil imports from the sea; stopping Korean exports, especially textiles and seafood (which are of significant hard currency value to the regime); and ensuring that high-tech machinery and raw materials that might support Kim’s nuclear-weapons and missile programs are not allowed into the Hermit Kingdom.

While China might continue to provide such supplies across the long Chinese-North Korean land border, a naval blockade would increase pressure on Beijing to comply with existing UN sanctions, as any illegal imports would be obvious proof of Chinese violations.

Setting up a naval blockade is a tactical challenge, even for the U.S. North Korea operates commercial and military ports on its east and west coasts of the peninsula, including Nampo on the Bay of Korea and Hungnam on the Sea of Japan. It also has ports in the far northeast of the country on the edge of Russia, which has been one of Kim’s apologists on the world stage. Shutting down the entire flow of goods into and out of North Korea would significantly tax the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

But it wouldn’t be impossible. . . 

Well, we are technically still at war with the NORKS, so it's not an new act of war.

As the Admrial notes, it would put a real strain on the U.S. fleet,  especially without lots of allied help.

CIA World Factbook (from whence came the image above) notes the following "major" seaports:

Ch'ongjin, Haeju, Hungnam (Hamhung), Namp'o, Senbong, Songnim, Sonbong (formerly Unggi), Wonsan

Israel Interdicts Suspected Weapon Carrying Ship

The Jerusalem Post reports "IDF boards ship allegedly smuggling arms to Gaza", the IDF being the Israel Defense Force. The ship being identified as a Liberian-flagged ship named HS Beethoven:

Commandos from the navy’s Flotilla 13 unit boarded a cargo ship, the HS Beethoven, in the Mediterranean Sea on Sunday night on suspicion it was trying to smuggle weapons to the Gaza Strip. The ship, which was flying a Liberian flag, was intercepted by Israel Navy vessels approximately 260 km. from Israel’s coast. Commandos boarded the ship with the captain’s consent and began searching cargo containers for arms.

It appears from the body of the article that the headline is misleading. The vessel might be suspected of attempted smuggling of weapons, but it is not "allegedly smuggling" such items until such weapons are found aboard the ship, which it appears, as of the time the report, had not happened, though I suspect that an intelligence source put the alert out on this vessel.

UPDATE: Report now is that no weapons found on vessel. See here.

Recommended Reading- "Deadly business" at American Shipper

Eric Kulisch has a nice article at American Shipper on the Somali pirates at "Deadly business: Pirates demonstrate coordinated logistics approach in spreading mayhem." with a serious warning about the potential spread of the pirate's attack range:

A multinational military presence has reduced the rate of successful hijackings, but the number of ship takeovers has increased because pirates launched many more attacks since 2009. And it has pushed the pirates away from the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa into a much wider, indefensible area for vessels targeted by pirates.
By late this year or early 2012, Somali pirates will be targeting merchant ships off Sri Lanka and making arrangements to extend their influence east to the Straits of Malacca, said Michael Frodl, a Washington-based attorney and head of independent consultancy C-Level Maritime Risks.
***
The continued payment of ransoms has fueled the spread of piracy, a lucrative cottage industry in a country without a functioning economy. The average ransom has reached $5.4 million, an insurance industry report said, with one payment (for release of the South Korean tanker Samho Dream in November) reaching $9.5 million, and another in April for $13.5 million (for release of the Greek-flagged tanker Irene SL, owned by First Navigation Special Maritime Enterprises).
***
Pirates have also changed their tactics, frequently using hijacked ships with human shields as mother ships that can operate at extended range in all weather conditions. Three years ago pirate activity tended to die down during monsoon season because the seas were too rough for small fishing dhows to operate. The bigger ships, acting as a forward base, can carry dozens of pirates and tow several small attack boats capable of multiple, simultaneous attacks.
The use of hostages onboard ships was also a reaction to military attempts to blockade Somali ports so pirates could not get to sea.
The maritime bandits are also becoming more aggressive. Gangs often send a reconnaissance boat ahead and then swarm a vessel from all sides if there is no response, or abandon the attack if armed guards appear on deck. Now, pirates retreat less often and bring in the full force, even if the first skiff takes fire, in a concerted effort to take their target, said Tom Rothrauff, head of private security firm Trident Group.
Gangs of sea robbers have also used blowtorches to open citadel rooms on ships where crews retreat for safe haven until rescuers can arrive.
***
Hardcore pirates with better financing, logistics and planning capabilities have their eyes on moving even further south near the island of Minicoy, according to C-Level Maritime Risks’ recent long-range forecast.
“The more aggressive, better bankrolled pirates are moving there and going to take advantage of the fact that the Indians won’t patrol outside EEZ and the Sri Lankans won’t patrol outside their territorial waters,” Frodl said in an interview.
By the end of the year the new hot spot for pirate activity will be south of India and Sri Lanka, he predicted.

“The Somali pirates are exploring further collaboration with the remnants of the Tamil Tigers out of Sri Lanka who in the past have sold weapons to them via Eritrea, and now our greatest fear is a coordinated assault between the Somali pirates and the remnants of the Tamil Sea Tigers against commercial navigation in the waters south of India and Sri Lanka,” Frodl said.
***
“One of the concerns is that if the Indian navy is successful that the pirates will move south to points like Sri Lanka and Dondra Head and then go straight into the Straits of Malacca,” Murphy concurred. (Dondra Head is a cape at the extreme southern end of Sri Lanka.)
***
Multinational, NATO and European Union task forces, along with several individual nations are conducting counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and off the East Coast of Somalia. As many as 30 vessels from up to 20 nations are involved in counter-piracy patrols at any given time. But there are not enough ships, helicopters and aerial surveillance drones to effectively police beyond the established security corridor in the Gulf of Aden.
The territory they have to cover is so vast that often they can’t respond in time to vessels in distress or provide escorts. And the legal mandate to arrest pirates is unclear because intent to commit piracy is not defined under international law, and not all nations have translated their right to try international crimes into domestic authorizing legislation, making it easier for naval commanders to follow a “catch-and-release” policy. Under current practice, pirates are usually tried only when they are caught red-handed assaulting a ship.

A chilling warning about how the increasing ransoms paid may have increased the threat to ship crews concludes the piece.

Read it all.

As I have repeatedly said here, you will get only more of what you are willing to pay for.

To stop the spread of this menace, it needs to be treated more like a "war on piracy" by real naval action and serious containment efforts need to be invoked, regardless of the cost to the hostages. Indeed, any harm to hostages needs to be met with swift and vigorous action.

Somalia needs to be blockaded, as I have said for  some time.  I am not alone in this view, see  Somali Pirates: U.S. Senator Proposes Legislation for Counter Piracy.

See also "Combatting Piracy in International Waters", Make the Somali pirates’ sea smaller…, and this, from 2008, Somali Pirates: Containment Strategy, where I wrote:

As I have frequently stated in posts on Somalia, what is needed to be done is that which no one wants to do.

No nation or collection of nations wants to "secure" Somalia and become the "owner" of the Somalia problem.

"Ownership" is what might be the result of the necessary land based effort which could put a halt to the Somali pirate raids.

But complete defeat of pirates may not be the goal. It may make sense to work to minimize the harm they can cause and work on "containing" the pirate problem.

"Containment" in this context means keeping Somali pirate interference with important sea lines of communication to an acceptable level - one in which the cost is not too high in dollars or blood. This makes economic sense, reduces the risk of death to innocent parties and justifies naval piracy patrol operations.

Containment is the alternative to taking over Somalia.

In fact, I have written about this threat so much, I don't have the time to put in enough links.

The point is that defense never wins wars. It's time to go on the offensive and go after these pirates.

It's time for some serious counter-piracy.

Publicity Seekers Get Stopped by Israeli Sea Blockade

Dignite/Al Karama off some shore somewhere

After only getting 10% of their 10 boat publicity "flotilla" (that's 1 boat) to sail toward Gaza, international publicity seekers were stunned to find out that Israel means it when it announces that it is continuing to enforce a sea blockade off Gaza as reported in Israeli navy surrounds Gaza-bound French yacht. Even better, the boat seems to be suffering some sort of communication blackout so that international publicity seeking whining cannot be heard or seen live:

Israeli warships on Tuesday surrounded a French yacht carrying pro-Palestinian activists as they neared the coast of Gaza in a bid to breach the Israeli blockade, an organiser told AFP.

Organisers said Israeli navy vessels had surrounded the Dignite/Al Karama in international waters, some 40 nautical miles off the Gaza shoreline, at around 0630 GMT and all communications were cut shortly afterwards.

News that Israel had stopped the ship was roundly denounced by Gaza's Hamas rulers, who decried it as "a new act of Zionist piracy."

"The boat is surrounded by at least three Israeli ships and since 9:06 am (0706 GMT) all the communications have been jammed. We can't get in touch with them by phone or by Internet," French organiser Julien Rivoire told AFP by phone from Paris.

In a separate statement, the organisers urged the French government "to take its responsibilities and to protect the passengers, and to call on Israel not resort to violence."

The Israeli military confirmed it had made contact with the boat, which is carrying 16 people, including three crew members and three journalists.

"The Israel navy is currently in a dialogue with the activists on board the Al Karama in an attempt to dissuade them from continuing on their route into an area under a maritime security blockade," a statement said.

"The Israel navy will allow the organisers and passengers to re-route at any point, prior to the boarding of Israel navy soldiers."

Activists on board the ship were told they will not be allowed to reach Gaza under any circumstances and advised to change course for the Egyptian port of El-Arish, an Israeli military source told AFP.

"They contacted the boat and said: 'We won't let you reach Gaza under any circumstances, but you can head for El-Arish if you want,'" he quoted the naval commandos as saying.

The international political effort and the other efforts (see also here) leading up to the sailing of this one boat and the non-sailing of the other 9 has been interesting to watch. For those of you unfamiliar with the "law" of blockade, read this from the San Remo Manual setting out the appropriate blockade rules for parties to an armed conflict:

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

So, the question you have to ask yourself is, "Are Israel and Hamas-governed Gaza in a state of armed conflict?"

The FreeGaza.org side of the sage of the sailing of Dignité :

It is in large part because the Dignité commenced its voyage from a French port and the French government refused to interfere with this civilian human rights initiative that the ship continues its mission. The Dignité and its passengers – from France, Canada, Greece, Sweden, and Tunisa – represent a flotilla that was delayed by acts of sabotage and by an egregious act of complicity by the Greek government with Israel’s human rights violations and policy towards Gaza that the International Committee of the Red Cross determined to be “collective punishment.” But they also represent the steadfastness and determination of the flotilla movement to sail until the blockade is broken. The idea that Freedom Flotilla II could be stopped misunderstands the nature of this non-violent movement and its strength of purpose.

Despite most of the ships being unable to leave Greek ports, the flotilla nonetheless managed to highlight the vicious nature of Israel’s policy towards Gaza. Israeli leaders showed their willingness to use intimidation, lies, economic blackmail, threats of violence, and sabotage to stop boats that Israeli military officials admitted would not be carrying weapons. This clearly demonstrates that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is not based on “security”, but is meant to punish the Palestinian people, denying their freedom and keeping them cut off from the rest of the world.

A blockade by definition is designed to "cut off" an armed adversary from the rest of the world, except as provided by the San Remo Manual.

It should also be noted that Egypt has opened its border to Gaza thus mooting much of the "cut off from the world" argument.

Israel's Blockade of Gaza and the Battle of Media Coverage

So, in another effort to gain media coverage both sympathetic to the population of Gaza and, of course, for themselves, members of Code Pink are apparently setting out on a mission with the intent to demand protection from the U.S. government (meaning the U.S. Navy) as they attempt to force the well-known Israeli sea blockade of Gaza.

Let's start with this - Code Pink stages pro-Gaza rally at State Dept. (highlighting and blue comments are mine):

The American ship Audacity of Hope, part of the Freedom Flotilla II, will depart from Greece with 50 passengers in late June headed for Gaza. In total, the flotilla will include roughly ten boats carrying 1,000 passengers, and will set sail on June 25. They are billing their voyage as a sequel to the Freedom Flotilla, which was intercepted by Israeli authorities on its way to Gaza last May in an incident that resulted in nine deaths.

Code Pink staged a small press conference on Thursday morning outside the State Department's C Street entrance that featured speeches by Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, who will be a passenger on the flotilla, former CIA analyst and passenger Ray McGovern , activist and flotilla passenger Missy Lane, Palestinian-American lawyer Noura Erekat, and Gazan activist Amer Shurrab.[Got to get those names spelled correctly - it's all about them]

This year's flotilla occurs in a drastically altered atmosphere as compared to last year's. The Israelis have eased restrictions on some goods and Egypt has opened up the Rafah Crossing. Regardless, the activists at the State Department stressed that the people of Gaza still live under harsh conditions and need international advocacy.[This trip is totally unnecessary but we still want the publicity]

Benjamin, naturally dressed all in pink, said she is hoping that the American presence aboard the flotilla will lessen the risk of a violent encounter with the Israel Defense Forces, and called on the State Department to express its support. [Oh Bulls***, Ms. Benjamin is really hoping for a media rich "confrontation" with the IDF - otherwise, why bother?]

"We, as Americans, who are going on the boat that is a U.S. flag ship, that is carrying U.S. passengers...this is the time for our State Department to come forward and say ‘we recognize our responsibility to U.S. citizens and we will put pressure on the Israeli government to make sure that no harm comes to our citizens,'" she said.[Last time I looked, the U.S. government has virtually no responsibility to do anything for citizens who are stupid enough to put themselves in harm's way intentionally or bail them out once they are deep into it. I'd be more impressed if the "flotilla" was sailing into Somali pirate waters to protest the treatment of women in Somalia. More impressed, but not any more inclined to suggest that the U.S. government do a damn thing about it.]

Just a reminder, it's my view that Israel has a perfectly legal right to blockade Gaza under the conditions that exist between the Gazans and Israel.

In support of my view, I offer some information on blockades from part of an earlier post:

There is that the magic word "blockade."

As you may recall, Israel has interdicted ships attempting to carry supplies into Gaza. As noted in an earlier post, this seems to be a legal blockade of Gaza. There is an interesting piece by a Israeli legal scholar Ruth Lapidoth, The Legal Basis of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza, which lays out the argument that the blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal under international law.The piece cites the San Remo Manual as setting out the appropriate rules for parties to an armed conflict:

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Professor Lapidoth finds that these rules applied to a blockade of Gaza.

Somali Pirates: EU Spanish LPD Takes Out Some Pirate Boats

EU MSC (HOA) reports The spanish warship “GALICIA” disrupts a pirate action group off the Somali coasts:

September 22, EU NAVFOR Spanish ship GALICIA disrupted a pirate action group, comprised of one whaler and two skiffs.

Galicia was patrolling off the east coast of Somalia and thanks to detailed information gathering, the Spanish ship was able to intercept two skiffs and the whaler.
The group was located at night only 500 meters from the Somali coast by one of Galicia’s helicopters, which started the preparation for the interception.

This one was completed without any opposition from the 11 suspected pirates. The whaler and skiffs carried all pirate paraphernalia indicating they were preparing to conduct acts of piracy off the coasts (fuel drums, ladders, weapons and ammunition.

As none of the pirates were caught in an act of piracy, although conspiracy was clearly stated, it was not possible to proceed with a prosecution. However, everything that could be used to conduct piracy was seized and the whaler and one skiff were destroyed.

Keeping the bad guys from getting to sea . . . blockade those pirates!

Somali Pirates: EU naval force blockades pirate group

You can call it whatever you like, but I call it a blockade (look at Section II, Methods of Warfare, Sect 93 to 108).

What am I referring to? This - EU naval force flagship disrupts large pirate group:

On 17 September, while executing a patrol along the Somali coastline, the crew of EU NAVFOR ship FS DE GRASSE located and disrupted a Pirate Action Group comprising of six boats. She thus prevented them from reaching the shipping lanes on the high seas to conduct attacks on merchant vessels.

On 16 September, the helicopter from the EU NAVFOR ship FS DE GRASSE was conducting a routine patrol when it spotted suspicious boats on a beach, loaded with pirate paraphernalia (ladders, fuel tanks…), indicating the imminent departure to sea of a Pirate Action Group.

The following morning, the same helicopter from FS DE GRASSE relocated this same group at sea. This time, the Pirate Action Group comprised of several skiffs and a whaler; a boat of larger size and often used as a refuelling asset without which the skiffs cannot sail far enough to conduct attacks.

A first skiff of this group was quickly disrupted by the boarding team of FS DE GRASSE and was sent back to shore, having removed all the pirate paraphernalia. The French destroyer then steamed at high speed towards a second position provided by her helicopter to intercept the whaler. Once the whaler had been placed under surveillance, the boarding team of FS DE GRASSE chased and successfully disrupted the two remaining skiffs that were still in range.

In total, twelve suspected pirates and four boats (three skiffs and one whaler) were intercepted; two further skiffs fled the scene. As none of the pirates were caught in the act of piracy, it was not possible to proceed with a prosecution under international law. However, all of the equipment which could have been used for an attack was seized and one whaler and one skiff were destroyed.

Despite having to release the pirates, this action by the EU NAVFOR ship FS DE GRASSE has disrupted a pirate group’s action and successfully prevented them from reaching high seas to commit acts of piracy against vulnerable merchant vessels.

You know, when you prevent the bad guys from going to sea to do harm, that's a blockade. And a damn good idea.

EU Photo captions and my comments (top to bottom) (click on pictures to enlarge them):

"The whaler intercepted by EU NAVFOR was used as a logistical asset for the five skiffs."

I guess this is the "whaler" that had to be destroyed. Note the large amount of fuel. The pirates appear to have been ready to engage in some serious "ship hunting."

EU NAVFOR FS DE GRASSE, the whaler, and the warship's boarding team (from right to left)

Note the beach in the background. the De Grasse is not doing high seas patrols . . .

Update: more thoughts on blockading the Somali pirates:

Here, here, and here.

Israeli enforcement of blockade draws condemnation, but it wasn't "piracy"

So, Israel maintains a well-known blockade of Gaza and it enforces that blockade because some ships in the past have been known to smuggle weapons into Gaza. These weapons are, of course, used to attack Israel. Such attacks, in turn, prompt more interference by Israel with Gaza's internal affairs...

Now, once again employing their most dangerous weapon - favorable press coverage - attempted Gaza blockade runners have found themselves bloodied by an Israeli naval force and got the UN to act: UN condemns Israel for attack on aid convoy:

Pressure on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza increased further last night as the UN Security Council demanded a probe into the deadly attack on civilian aid ships in international waters. A Turkish charity in Gaza said that 19 people were missing; Israel put the death toll at 9.

As outrage grew over Israel’s attack on the flotilla of mostly Turkish aid vessels bound for Gaza, Security Council members, who had broken off from their spring holiday to hold an emergency session called for a “prompt, impartial, credible, transparent” investigation into the incident, and the release of all civilians being held by the Israelis.

Israel was called on to explain its use of “disproportionate force” against the humanitarian workers and Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said that he was shocked by the killings and demanded answers urgently.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN observer, called the attack on unarmed civilians on board foreign ships in international waters a “war crime,” and said it would not stop more ships from attempting to deliver aid to Gaza.

“Those fleets, one after the other, will be coming until the unethical blockade is put to an end and the suffering stops for our people,” he said.

While criticism of the vigor of the enforcement of the blockade may or may not be appropriate, any comparison to "piracy" is totally wrong. As the widely signed UN Convention on the Law of Sea indicates:

Article101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

No "private ends," no piracy. The rules of blockade are covered by the law of war. See here for a summary.

But you might note that if you attempt to run a known blockade, you are risking trouble.

North Korea: South Korea Ratcheting Up, Threatens "Blockade" of North Korea

The Chosun Ilbo: Torpedo Sinks Inter-Korean Relations to Cold-War Depths:

The sanctions the government announced on Monday include steps to blockade North Korea, which became unavoidable after clear evidence showed that the sinking was an act of military aggression against the South. That ends 10 years of rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula and returns inter-Korean relations to the dark days before 1989, when the two sides agreed to step up exchanges.
***
The two Koreas are still technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended with merely a ceasefire. The South Korean public has once again been reminded of this reality. Lee in a public address Monday said the peninsula faces a "major turning point."

South Korean troops are preparing for action. They resumed so-called psychological warfare against North Korea on Monday, and plan to shift their rules of engagement from defensive to offensive mode. Around next month, U.S. and South Korean forces will hold joint anti-submarine exercises, and when maritime blockade drills begin during the second half of this year in line with the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, North Korea will be forced to heighten its awareness for a prolonged period.

A naval blockade? Oh, my. That's pretty bold after losing a ship to a torpedo.

On the other hand maybe, "...[W]e've got ourselves another war. A gut bustin', mother-lovin' Navy war."

ReliefWeb has a report on the DPRK (that's North Korea) food status here. Oh, yes, while Kim Jong-il is investing in nukes and missiles, his people were having such food as they get catered to them from more useful countries:

Using the apparent per capita cereal consumption of about 140 kg per year in recent years and a population of about 24 million, the country would require about 3.36 million tonnes for human consumption. Considering other uses such as seed, feed, post-harvest losses and some stock changes, FAO estimates that the country would have import requirements of 1.10 million tonnes for the marketing year 2009/10 (November/October). However, given the ongoing economic constraints it is unlikely that this deficit could be covered by commercial imports. As of April 2010 only 177 000 tonnes of cereals have been recorded/declared as imports. Thus a significant international food aid is needed to meet the shortage.
***
The country continues to suffer from chronic food insecurity, high malnutrition rates and economic problems, and has great difficulties meeting the needs of its about 24 million people. The FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission (CFSAM) conducted in the late 2008 confirmed a significant deterioration in food security in most parts of the country in recent years. The poor, especially those living in urban areas, continue to be affected by soaring food prices. It is very likely that the financial and economic situation of most households has worsened after recent monetary measures taken by the government to replace the devalued currency by a new legal tender for all transactions.

World Food Program has a similar report:

Since 1995, WFP has played a central role in mobilizing and delivering food assistance to millions of the DPRK’s hungriest people, saving countless lives and helping to achieve significant reductions in malnutrition rates. Emergency operations between 1995 and 2005 secured more than four million tonnes of commodities valued at US$1.7 billion and directly supported up to one-third of the population.

In response to a government request for relief assistance and confirmed new food needs, WFP launched an emergency operation in September 2008. The US$504 million operation set out to target 6.2 million of the most vulnerable groups, mainly young children, pregnant and lactating women and the elderly, addressing immediate humanitarian needs of the population while simultaneously improving the nutritional quality over the medium-term.

Vitamin-and-mineral enriched foods produced at WFP-supported factories are given to young children and pregnant and nursing women, and cereal rations to underemployed workers through food-for-community-development schemes aimed at improving food security and mitigating natural disasters. All of these activities are vital investments in the future of the beneficiaries.

 And aiding in propping up a nasty, corrupt regime by feeding its huddled masses while the DPRK government spends money on weapons instead of plowshare.

Another "worker's paradise."