(News Focus) S. Korea, U.S. stuck in nonproliferation dilemma
As the decades-old agreements between the two nations for nonproliferation of WMD are set to expire, requiring reinstatement or possible revision, several contentious issues still remain. One restriction is on Korea's missile and UAV capabilities, which the Korean military desires to upgrade for more independent defense structure. Korea wants to develop a new family of conventional ballistic missiles with medium to intermediate range from 800km to 3000km able to hit various targets of importance in the region, as well as a new class of MALE and HALE UAV with large payloads for expanded combat and reconnaissance roles. Additionally, while the still remaining restriction on Korea's independent enrichment of nuclear fuel can no longer technologically hinder Korea's ability to develop advanced nuclear weapons quickly should it choose to do so (it's original purpose was precisely that: close Korea's dual-use path to develop nuclear weapon technology), it continues to harm the Korean nuclear industry's competitiveness in the civilian sector. Constant import of refined nuclear fuel, as well as the inability to export certain nuclear technologies in lucrative sectors, annually cost the Korean economy several billions of dollars in both real expenditures and lost opportunity. Korea is 40% dependent on nuclear for energy, and is now one of the new leading competitors for the export market of nuclear reactors.(News Focus) S. Korea, U.S. stuck in nonproliferation dilemma
By Lee Chi-dong
WASHINGTON, July 16 (Yonhap) -- After years of "best-ever" partnerships in handling North Korea's nuclear and missile threats, South Korea and the United States find themselves in a drawn-out stalemate over their own nuclear and missile issues.
South Korea has sought to upgrade its ballistic missile capability and expand its non-military nuclear activity.
But Seoul remains shackled by separate accords with Washington, originally forged decades ago. Years-long consultations between the allies over the matters have been deadlocked.
"Those are not only bilateral affairs but also associated with global nonproliferation issues. That is why it is difficult to reach a compromise," a South Korean government official told Yonhap News Agency.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nort...00100315F.HTML
Korea is a very different country from the volatile third world dictatorship of 1974, and is one of the formidable allies fighting for global security with the US, from Vietnam War to Iraq War and War against Terrorism, and these factors should well be put into consideration.
The most important consideration is that all these unlocked capabilities will significantly contribute to Korea's independent defense capability, and reduce US military responsibility in the region. The complication is that this will highly probably come at a huge cost to regional US-Korea-China-Japan relations, much more than to the global nonproliferation initiative. The US will be viewed as having officially sanctioned Korea's ability to strike not only North Korea but also theoretically Japan or China with improved weaponry, as while the US obviously held the influence to prevent such development, didn't sufficiently use it.
Last edited by Ambassador; 07-20-2012 at 03:53 AM.
Ambassador - I believe that current nuclear exporting countries are not too keen to put another exporting country on the list. They will loose share of the very lucrative market and to a certain degree leverage. Same goes for Iran - nobody wants them to be self sufficient.
Once you are self sufficient they have little leverage upon you.
Well, lets just leave it the ways it is and as soon as the treaty expires we are free to do whatever we want ....
I don't think the enrichment restrictions are placed upon Korea for such a small reason. I don't see an economic agenda behind this. Though I agree that there are certain actors in the region who do not want to see Korea's military too strengthened that may undermine their strategic leverage (which is unrelated to nuclear issue, because we are only discussing non-military use for it). These actors' interests are intertwined with those of the US. Anyway it's an issue that I want to discuss in more detail some other time.Originally Posted by K...A..J...
According to the Korean government, existing ballistic missile designs can be modified to achieve 500km range within six months, and to achieve 1000km within two years. Korea will spend some $2 billion to obtain 500-600 of these missiles over the next five years. This expanded family of new medium range ballistic and cruise missiles will provide Korea a quick and affordable way to vastly improve its ability to conventionally strike on any location in the Korean peninsula.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...052200636.html
While I think most US officials would normally agree, SKorea has pretty extensive ties with Iran. So thats a big nono
That, and you mentioned needing these for strikes on Japan and China...contingency wise, yes its important to plan for anything, but Japan is probably our greatest ally.
Though it probably has more to do with us not wanting to disturb non-prolif agreements around the world...meh
1. Rather us than NK
2. Don't really think anyone thinks the minute we get the go ahead we will start lobing dirty bombs into japan
I know, but its words like that that tend to cause worry...especially since SKorea has occasional America-hating fits in addition to the usual Japan hating ones
Japan is not a USA ally, its almost a colony of the USA because of the WWII andf that's exactly the problem, because in case of a hipotetical confrontation between Japan and Korea, USA will support Japan in order to keep japan servitude ...
Regarding nuclear capability we know its just a matter of convenience for japan to develop its nuclear weapons since they have the knowhow and most important, a huge amount of nuclear material stocked in their country just waiting to be transformed into nuclear weapon as soon as they decided to ...
Korean missiles have nothing new to offer compared to what Russia or China has who are much more advanced than Korea in this field. Russia and China are already Iran's long-time suppliers.
It's true that Korea and Iran enjoy extensive ties in the shipbuilding and automobile sectors, but they've not been used to build Iranian warships or tanks. At least as far as publicly known information is concerned. I don't think this arrangement is going to change.
That means Korea should not have been allowed to acquire other types of long-range systems such as fighter jets and Aegis destroyers in the first place, which can potentially counter Japan's self-defense force. Korean F-15K and KDX-III are even more powerful than their Japanese counterparts (F-15J, Kongo/Atago class DDG). But it's agreeable that ballistic missiles probably represent a much more dangerous and hard-to-deter threat than those weaponry. Even then, any possible ROK threat to Japan is totally outclassed by the threat posed by NK to Japan. South Korean weapons are primarily meant to fight the NK military, and most importantly, its ability to wield WMDs, which would theoretically fit into Japanese security interests. At least, there is no reason for the US itself to be concerned that Korea will in anyway threaten Japanese sovereignty, unless it assumes that Japan has a separate calculus of the development that would cause it to protest against the US.
That's one of the reasons, true. Though the report suggests that the most important factor is the reaction from Beijing. Improving ROK military capability, not only one that can theoretically threaten China, but also one which will considerably heighten the chance of ROK winning a decisive victory against NK and achieve reunification in a real war scenario (in short, dangerously tipping the military balance between the two Koreas, as at the moment the only real advantage that NK has over ROK is ballistic missiles, but this development threatens to overturn that advantage completely), will cost diplomatic ties with China. At least for Japan, a Korean war that was won in overwhelming victory for the South Korean side with more minimized loss is not a detrimental outcome.
Thats pretty rich coming from a Korean... actually not this is exactly what Icon is talking about.
I think that's a lame excuse since there are USA hating people even in the USA .... one dont need to be a genius to understand that korean nuclear and missile limitation serves to USA international strategy ambition and when it comes to far east asia china and Japan are priority to USA
Ambassador, you know what I personally believe, I was just pointing out possible objections on US government part
Actually the US appears to be one of the most beloved countries by Koreans. It's only a British study, but Koreans tend to like the US and its global influence much more than Japanese, Australians or most Europeans do. If there was a US war which required the help of its allies (but did not immediately involve them) the Korean public is one of the most likely to be in favor of fighting for the US, should the military ability permit it. In the two most costly wars for the US since Korean War Korea had the premier and largest fighting forces aiding the US military. Likewise the US performed very admirable PR works in Korea beyond just the troop presence, so far.
Yeah its just that once Koreans get behind something they are LOUD.
Ambassador, I also support sending koreans soldiers to USA should they need our help .... we have a debt with them and want to pay it ASAP, that's why I always supported the idea of sending fighting troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight alongside with the USA soldiers ...Actually the US appears to be one of the most beloved countries by Koreans. It's only a British study, but Koreans tend to like the US and its global influence much more than Japanese, Australians or most Europeans do. If there was a US war which required the help of its allies (but did not immediately involve them) the Korean public is one of the most likely to be in favor of fighting for the US, should the military ability permit it. In the two most costly wars for the US since Korean War Korea had the premier and largest fighting forces aiding the US military. Likewise the US performed very admirable PR works in Korea beyond just the troop presence, so far.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
