Deploying US missile defense system would be hugely expensive and undermine Korea’s own efforts toward missile defense

THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), one of the key means of interception in the US missile defense system, is once again sparking controversy. But this time around, the controversy is rather odd.

It is unusual for politicians to step forward to lead the debate, and it is also unusual for them to insist on deploying a specific weapon system. Developed by US defense firm Lockheed Martin, THAAD is an anti-ballistic missile system. Currently, the US army has deployed two units in Texas and one in Guam, while the United Arab Emirates have purchased and deployed one unit.

Normally, the opinion of the military is respected on the question of what weapons should be deployed for battle. Typically, the role of politicians has been to call for countermeasures when concerns are raised about national security and then to investigate, criticize, and offer advice about those measures.

For politicians to openly raise a stir about deploying a specific weapon, namely THAAD, has never been seen before.

The point of the debate is also double-edged. The argument that US Forces Korea (USFK) should deploy THAAD on the Korean peninsula is mixed up with calls for South Korea to purchase and deploy the weapon system itself.

The controversy was kicked off in June 2014 when Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of ROK-US Combined Forces Command, said that he had made a personal request to the US military authorities for THAAD to be deployed on the Korean peninsula.

Viewed as an extension of this, the current debate would seem to be about the USFK deploying THAAD in South Korea. But since the official US position is that it has not yet decided whether to deploy THAAD on the Korean peninsula, such debate appears premature.

The debate may be an attempt to preempt opponents to THAAD both inside and outside of South Korea by laying the groundwork for USFK deploying THAAD. Even so, things should be done in the proper order, and counting your chickens before they hatch can lead to humiliation.

If on the other hand the point of the debate is for South Korea to purchase THAAD and deploy it itself, that appears just as premature. The main reason for deploying THAAD is to set up a multi-layered missile defense network. The object is to increase the success rate of interception through a two-fold defense system. If North Korea launched a missile, THAAD could target the missile at a high altitude, up to 150km. If this failed, there would be a second chance to intercept the missile at a lower altitude of 15km with a Patriot (PAC) system.

However, this multi-layered defense strategy is also being incorporated into the Korean Air and Missile Defense (KAMD). The low-altitude defense will be handled by the six batteries of Patriot-2 missiles currently held by the South Korean military, which will be upgraded, as well as Patriot-3 batteries, which will be deployed in the future. For high-altitude defense, the South Korean military means to develop its own long-range surface-to-air missiles (L-SAM) to intercept incoming missiles at an altitude of 50 to 60 km.

One of the reasons why calls are being made to deploy THAAD despite these plans appears to be skepticism about the ability of South Korean researchers to develop L-SAM. However, the exploratory phase, which involves assessing the possibility of developing a weapons system through research into its main components and key technology, is scheduled to begin this October and to continue for three years. It is natural to wait for the results before talking about this.

Maybe the people openly debating THAAD think that, since the development of L-SAM will obviously fail, we should give up on it right now and just deploy THAAD.

Perhaps they want to both purchase THAAD and continue developing L-SAM. Deploying a single THAAD unit costs 2 trillion won (UStpf=board/list&board_code=11.76 billion). Since from two to four units are believed to be necessary to defend the entire territory of South Korea, this would cost between 4 and 8 trillion won. L-SAM will also costs in the trillions of won. Doing both is likely to trigger complaints about excessive investment.

The reason the South Korean government said it would not deploy THAAD is because of the controversy about joining the US missile defense system. Most of all, it was concerned about opposition from China. The government has also supported the idea of developing a South Korean missile defense system based on L-SAM.

However, if THAAD is deployed on the Korean Peninsula, this would mean that both the upper and lower tiers of the South Korean missile defense system are composed of American interceptors, seriously undermining the idea of a Korean missile defense system. Robbed of its logical argument, the government appears to be in a tenuous position.

But maybe not. Maybe it is actually the case that, since the government is hobbled by its own pledges, the ruling party is stepping forward in its place to shift public opinion and clear away the obstacles to deploying THAAD.

　

By Park Byong-su, senior staff writer

　

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]