JCS chief nominee vows to beef up S. Korea's defense capabilities

Admiral Choi is saying all the right things.  The ROK military and its leaders know what needs to be done.  The question is will the government resource all the requirements?  

In addition to what I think are the right comments on missile defense, nuclear deterrence, and OPCON transfer, I am especially heartened by this statement:

Choi also pledged to strike back against any provocations by North Korea, which killed 50 South Koreans in 2010 in a torpedo attack against a Navy warship and the shelling of a western border island.  

"I will strike the origin of attack as well as its command and supporting forces to stop any further provocations," Choi told lawmakers of the parliamentary defense committee. 

Although seemingly counterintuitive at the next kinetic provocation by the north, the ROK military must strike rapidly and decisively at the time and place of the provocation as ADM Choi outlines above in order to prevent escalation.  If they wait too long or strike targets deeper into north Korea that could very well be interpreted as a direct threat to the regime and cause a response we do not want.  But I believe the north actually will respect an immediate and decisive response (there  very good history of doing so in the immediate vicinity of the DMZ and the NLL where there have been significant exchanges of fire over the last 60 years that have not escalated beyond the immediate provocation).

But Admiral Choi has laid down the marker and he and the ROK military must execute decisively at the next provocation if one occurs along the lines of the Cheonan sinking or the artillery shelling of Y-P Do.

V/R
Dave

JCS chief nominee vows to beef up S. Korea's defense capabilities

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131011000488

Published : 2013-10-11 11:13
Updated : 2013-10-11 13:11

The nominee for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) vowed Friday to speed up major weapons programs to bolster defense capabilities, saying North Korea's missile and nuclear ambitions are posing the greatest threat to South Korean national security.

President Park Geun-hye last month appointed Adm. Choi Yun-hee to the JCS chief, marking the first time that a Navy chief has been appointed to the top commander post. His appointment is subject to parliamentary approval.

Choi said the South Korean military should speed up an upgrade of the current missile defense and acquire surveillance satellites to establish independent Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) and a pre-emptive missile destruction system, the so-called "Kill Chain."

"South Korea and U.S. forces should deter North Korea from using its nuclear weapons using a joint deterrence strategy," the 59-year-old Choi said during a parliamentary confirmation hearing.

"If there is a possibility of the North using (nuclear weapons) and imminent danger, we have to launch a pre-emptive strike using the kill chain. If there's still a nuclear threat, we have to counter it using the KAMD."

South Korea currently operates 48 PAC-2 missiles imported from Germany, which have an interception rate of less than 40 percent.

As part of a mid-term defense plan, the military plans to upgrade the current system to the "hit-to-kill" PAC-3 developed by Lockheed Martin with improved guidance accuracy, and adopt military satellites and spy drones.

North Korea is believed to have more than 1,000 missiles of varying types, with most only able to target South Korea and some capable of hitting some Japanese and U.S. military bases.

Pyongyang fired off a long-range rocket last December and conducted its third atomic test in February as part of efforts to produce a nuclear warhead with a greater range. Seoul's spy agency recently confirmed that Pyongyang has restarted a 5-megawatt plutonium reactor in Yongbyon.

"Considering the nuclear development so far, I believe (North Korea) has made considerable progress in warhead miniaturization," Choi said. 

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131011000488

North Korea warns that U.S. bases in Guam, Japan are within range

A few comments on deterrence because some have mentioned that perhaps we should put Patriots on Guam to protect the bases and deter north Korea just as we are increasing the interceptors in Alaska to deter north Korea.

I would not think of defensive weapons as a deterrent to north Korea in the same sense that anti-ballistic missile defense would be a deterrent in the Cold War and as part of the nuclear stand off with the USSR.  I am not knowledgable enough to judge the efficacy of using Patriots to defend Guam against north Korean missiles.  However, I think neither Patriots in Guam nor interceptors in Alaska do much for deterrence against the north.  What deters the north is offensive military power (and I use power vice capabilities deliberately).  Defensive measures, while prudent of course from a military standpoint for protecting our forces and the ability to conduct operations, do not alone deter the north.  Demonstrated power and commitment to the Alliance are what deters the north and I am very confident that our B-52 overflights had a very powerful effect on the north's thinking.  Patriots in Guam and interceptors in Alaska can never have the same effect by themselves.

As an aside, I think the north is probably having a chuckle about the controversy it has read about regarding the amount of money spent on the stationing of the interceptors as well as the criticism of the system and the idea that it is not proven and may have little effect.  But more importantly the north looks at our defensive measures (and some might interpret them as desperate defensive measures because we are willing to spend a huge amount of money on a not fully proven system) as a sign of our fear of the north's capabilities.  They think they are they ones deterring us and that their actions are having a positive effect for their strategy.  And our defensive reaction is very important to support their internal domestic propaganda because of course they spin this as the north's nuclear and missile capability is making America tremble.

We should take defensive measures that we judge to be prudent to protect our interests and our forces but we should not consider those defensive measures by themselves as a deterrent.  For deterrence we need to demonstrate offensive military power.  And I would recommend that whenever we judge it necessary to take defensive measures we need to demonstrate offensive military power (and this needs to include Alliance military power so that the Alliance is shown to be strong and not being weakened by the north's actions which is a key part of its strategy) so as to strengthen our position, provide a credible deterrent, and undercut the legitimacy of the regime and the regime's actions.

I would add that where I would really like to see more Patriots is in Korea.  I would like the ROK military to buy Patriot PAC 3's to defend their bases.

V/R
Dave

North Korea warns that U.S. bases in Guam, Japan are within range By Jethro Mullen , CNN updated 8:41 PM EDT, Thu March 21, 2013

CNN.com

(CNN) -- The North Korean military issued a fresh burst of ominous rhetoric Thursday, warning that U.S. bases in Guam and Japan are within its "striking range."

The statement from the Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army, carried by the North's state-run news agency, follows the announcement by the United States this week that its B-52 bombers were making flights over South Korea as part of annual military exercises.

"The U.S. should not forget that the Andersen Air Force Base on Guam where the B-52s take off and naval bases in Japan proper and Okinawa where nuclear-powered submarines are launched are within the striking range of the DPRK's precision strike means," the North Korean military said Thursday.

Despite Pyongyang's rhetoric, no U.S. Navy submarines are based in Okinawa or anywhere else in Japan, although they may make calls at U.S. bases there. DPRK is short for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name.

Interactive: Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

Citing what it called the United States' "nuclear blackmail and threat," the North said it that it, too, would "take corresponding military actions."

Pyongyang had already reacted angrily to the B-52 flights, warning Wednesday of "strong military counteraction" if the planes made more sorties over the Korean Peninsula.

Angry words after new sanctions

Tensions have spiked in the region since North Korea carried out its latest underground nuclear test last month, the first under its new young leader Kim Jong Un, prompting the United Nations Security Council to respond by toughening sanctions on the secretive regime.

The sanctions enraged the North further, and during the week when the Security Council was voting on them, it ratcheted up its threats, suggesting it could carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States and South Korea.

Although analysts and American officials say Pyongyang is still a long way from being able to carry out such an attack on the U.S. mainland, the United States' bases in Japan and Guam appear to be within range of the North's conventional weapons.

In its comments Thursday, "the Kim Jong Un regime is just firing back" at its enemies in response to the B-52 flights and the military exercises of which they're a part, said Lee Jung-hoon, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul.

He said that the U.N. sanctions were also likely to be fueling the North's ire, but that the regime's threats were largely driven by domestic concerns.

"They're doing all this to prop up the regime," Lee said.

The military first strategy

Since Kim took over from his father as the head of the North Korean government in late 2011, he appears to have maintained the pursuit of a stronger military deterrent rather than adopting a more conciliatory approach to relations with South Korea and the United States.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/world/asia/north-korea-threats

ICAS Winter Symposium - The Korean Peninsula Issues ** and US National Security

ICAS Winter Symposium

---

Humanity, Peace and Security

The Korean Peninsula Issues **
and US National Security

February 15, 2013 Friday 1:00 PM - 4:30 PM
Rayburn Office Building Room B 318 
United States House of Representatives
Capitol Hill, Washington, DC



On-Line Registration

Chair	Synja P Kim (ICAS Fellow, President and Chairman)
Moderator	Sang Joo Kim (ICAS Senior Fellow & Executive Vice President)
Speakers
Steve Chabot	(Chairman, Subcommitte on Asia and the Pacific, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States House of Representatives) U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia and the Pacific.
Patrick M. Cronin	(ICAS Fellow; Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security) North Korea's Nuclear/Missile Threat.
Jacques deLisle	(ICAS Fellow; Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law & Professor of Political Science; Director, Center for East Asian Studies, University of Pennsylvania) Will East/South China Sea Be Boiling?
(List in progress)
Discussants Joseph Bosco (Senior Associate, CSIS) David Maxwell (ICAS Fellow; Associate Director, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University) Larry Niksch (ICAS Fellow; Senior Associate, CSIS) (List in progress)
* as a public service pro bon publico.
** ICAS designates this educational activity for continuing education/professional development for a maximum of 3.5 hours credit commensurate with the extent of actual participation.
ICAS is not an agent of any government and/or a foreign principal and solely supported by voluntary contributions. http://www.icasinc.org/2013/2013w/2013wsym.html