"The US and South Korean militaries are taking part in a major exercise in the Sea of Japan, despite threats of retaliation from North Korea."
"The army and people of the DPRK will start a retaliatory sacred war of their own style based on nuclear deterrent any time necessary in order to counter the US imperialists and the South Korean puppet forces deliberately pushing the situation to the brink of a war,"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10752746
AND I think that the Sinking of Cheaong(or how you spell it) is an invalid casus-belli to use as an excuse to for the military exercise, for the following arguments;
*Cheaong was sunk on disputed territory, where NK and SK both consider the area part of their terriotry, therefor if the other comes to that territory, then the defender will take measures to defend "their" border. You can't wander into a war zone expecting no causalities.
*North Korea has denied that they where responsible for the sinking. So the U.S. Navy could just slaughter the entire NK navy and then simply "deny" any responsibility? Grand!! What are we waiting for then?
*The truth about the sinking is unclear, so that should of been clarified properly before intentionally provoke an instable Government, it is common knowledge that the Korean Gov is screwed. "Unstable", "Screwed", provoked into violent, offensive action by the mere concept that other people have military equipment. Doesn't sound like the sort of Government that would be "justified" to do any damned thing at all.
So thats why in my opinion NK's actions is more justifed, because they where provoked to it. Let me try a different analogy. Two brothers are estranged over a fist fight they had a long time ago. One brother says publicly that if his brother ever comes near him, the fight is back on. The second brother shows up at the same bar as the first brother. The first brother then pulls out a gun and shoots the second brother. Justified?
I do condemn killing of Civilians, though South Korea is an representative Democracy, the people there have more say in their governments actions than those in North Korea, but do remember that I said that I condemn.
You do realize the fallacy of this argument, right? Or do you think that the war somehow "ended in a peace, instead of a ceasefire" for South Korea? Seems to me that their economy is doing just fine. Perhaps you should compare Communism and Democracy and see which system provided a better life for it's people under the exact same circumstances.
The Sovjet GDP/c was in 1929, 1386$, and in 1939, 2237$, a growth of ca. 61%. While the US GDP/c was during the same times, 6899$ in 1929 and in 1939 6561$, a growth of ca. -5%.
USA GDP/c growth from 1980(18577$) to 1985(20717$) was ca. 11,5%, while Sovjet economy was at 6427$ in 1980 and in 1985 at 6708, making the growth at ca. 4,4%. Showing that Communism is better for developing/poor nations, while Capitalism better suited for "richer" nations. Also Watch the economic growth of communist China, well, they are still on the poor side, but are growing at high speed, and I bet that they will need to make more "capitalistic" changes when their people get stronger, and they have already made some small capitalistic changes. Except that I was not talking about the Soviets, or China. I was talking about two halves of the same country. With the same people, basically the same resources, the same infrastructure, both of them starting the race at the EXACT SAME starting line. SK has lapped NK several dozen times in the economic/quality of life race. Comparing Russia and the USA and China is comparing apples and oranges and pears. Comparing NK/SK is comparing two halves of the same apple. One half rotted and is crawling with maggots. The other half sprouted and has grown into an apple tree.
So, using your logic, the United States and SK would be "justified" in bombing NK back to the stone age, for the exact same reasons you claim NK was "justified" in killing SK sailors, soldiers, and civilians? Wait... SK would be justified to actually attack NK, but they are NOT justified to simply run maneuvers where no one gets hurt or killed? You have a very twisted concept of "justification".
Also, condemning something that you also claim is 100% justified is illogical and nonsensical... or just plain blowing a smokescreen out your bunghole.