• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

South Korea expects North to launch ICBM on Saturday; Protests at US THAAD deployment

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
South Korea expects North to launch ICBM on Saturday, prime minister says
South Korea says it expects another North Korea intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch "on September 9," according to the country's Prime Minister Lee Nak-yon.

"The situation is very grave. It doesn't seem much time is left before North Korea achieves its complete nuclear armament," the prime minister told a meeting of defense ministers in Seoul Thursday.

"A special measure is urgently needed to stop their recklessness."

Opposition to THAAD has been fierce both within South Korea and without.

As the additional missile launchers arrived in Seongju late Wednesday, they were met by hundreds of protesters, who believe the system's presence could lead to environmental and health problems.

THAAD has also been opposed by peace campaigners, who have held rallies in Seoul and other cities warning it could lead to an escalation of tensions with North Korea.

It has also caused diplomatic rifts between South Korea and its neighbor China, which Seoul says imposed unofficial sanctions on it after deployment began, with Chinese tourist groups encouraged to boycott South Korea and Chinese consumers attacking Korean companies online.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang warned this week that further THAAD deployment "can only severely damage the strategic security balance in the region," harm the strategic interests of other countries such as China and cause further antagonism on the Korean Peninsula.

Russia has also criticized the move.

South Korea Deploys U.S. Anti-Missile Launchers Amid Clashes With Protesters

Protesters clashed with thousands of police at a South Korean village on Thursday as Seoul deployed the four remaining launchers of the U.S. anti-missile THAAD system designed to protect against mounting threats from North Korea.

The South's defense ministry confirmed on Wednesday the launchers would be installed on a former golf course near Seongju City some 217 km (135 miles) south of Seoul. Two launchers and a powerful radar are already in place at the site as part of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system.

Early on Monday, around 8,000 South Korean police gathered in the village of Soseong-ri, along the only road that leads up to the golf course, to break up a blockade of around 300 villagers and civic groups opposed to THAAD.

Some 38 protesters were wounded in t us sles with police, with 21 sent to hospital, according to a Seongju Fire Station official. None of the injuries were life-threatening, said Kim Jin-hoon.

The Soseong-ri residents say they do not have a political motive but are against the deployment of THAAD as their lives have been disrupted by the dozens of military helicopters, buses, trucks that travel through the small melon-farming town of 80 residents.

The decision to deploy THAAD, designed to shoot down short- to medium-range missiles mid-flight, has drawn strong objections from China. It believes the system's radar could be used to look deeply into its territory and will upset the regional security balance.

South Korea's defense ministry has said the deployment is necessary due to the imminent threat from North Korea, which has launched numerous missiles since South Korean President Moon Jae-in took office in early May.

VOD of a livestream of the protests
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
So basically people just want NK to be allowed to provoke and any attempt to build defenses against this are looked upon as destabilizing the region?

Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.
 

numble

Member
So basically people just want NK to be allowed to provoke and any attempt to build defenses against this are looked upon as destabilizing the region?

Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.
THAAD shoots down short and medium range missiles. So NK test launches an ICBM that THAAD cannot shoot down.
 

DrSlek

Member
Shoot that shit down.
The big problem with that is if the THAAD system misses, it reveals to NK it's a paper tiger and they not only take it as provocation, but they are also emboldened as they've seen the THAAD system is unreliable.
 

Sioen

Member
Sometimes I do get the feeling that South Korea is soon no longer an ally of the USA, it's like the people there no longer want/need help with all the chinese propaganda.
 

Daedardus

Member
So basically people just want NK to be allowed to provoke and any attempt to build defenses against this are looked upon as destabilizing the region?

Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.

At first, such systems seems like a good idea. I mean, you wouldn't want to be completely defenseless, right? Citings things such as health problems are also ridiculous compared to the environmental and health impact if a missile hits target.

The main problem other governments (like China) have with THAAD is that it relies on sophisticated detection techniques to detect the incoming missiles. But since the system is 24 hours a day operational, this makes it a prime espionage system that can track any military movement and possibly intercept communication in the neighbouring countries.

And another problem with THAAD is the reliability. The chance of actually succesfully disarming a missile in flight is like 50%. The most recent tests were succesful yes, but there were even more insuccesful tests before that and nobody actually really knows what the real reliability is outside a controlled test environment. NK could still launch four missiles and THAAD could let one or two through. Thus the real question is, does it still matter that you have it? Main opponents of THAAD just really advocate for the peaceful option, that is to prevent the launch of a missile whatsoever. The deployment of these systems can be seen as provocative and gives an opportunity to NK to want to 'test' these systems. So it's not really as easy as deploy this and we're safe from harm.
 

Magni

Member
I'm not convinced either way on THAAD. I get the arguments against it, but at the same time I still feel like you'd want some sort of missile defense with NK right there. Hoping for no launch, or a dud launch, or a no-harm launch. It stopped being funny a long time ago.

Horrible timing so close to 911 and Irma

9/11 was 16 years ago? And there's natural disasters all the time somewhere on the planet?
 

erragal

Member
Sometimes I do get the feeling that South Korea is soon no longer an ally of the USA, it's like the people there no longer want/need help with all the chinese propaganda.

If this happens it has 0% to do with propaganda, and 100% to do with US belligerence/aggressiveness. South Korea doesn't have this chummy 'we love China' mentality and certainly want to keep them at arm's length. But they are at least invested in avoiding a massive body count in the region. The US uses n. Korea to play political games, as a version of political terrorism on the fearful. Everyone knows the US is in no danger from N. Korea, everyone knows they have no intention of actually first striking anyone. Any escalation is purely theater of fear, and this sort of idiocy is why they are moving towards China.
 

7iberius

Member
At first, such systems seems like a good idea. I mean, you wouldn't want to be completely defenseless, right? Citings things such as health problems are also ridiculous compared to the environmental and health impact if a missile hits target.

The main problem other governments (like China) have with THAAD is that it relies on sophisticated detection techniques to detect the incoming missiles. But since the system is 24 hours a day operational, this makes it a prime espionage system that can track any military movement and possibly intercept communication in the neighbouring countries.

And another problem with THAAD is the reliability. The chance of actually succesfully disarming a missile in flight is like 50%. The most recent tests were succesful yes, but there were even more insuccesful tests before that and nobody actually really knows what the real reliability is outside a controlled test environment. NK could still launch four missiles and THAAD could let one or two through. Thus the real question is, does it still matter that you have it? Main opponents of THAAD just really advocate for the peaceful option, that is to prevent the launch of a missile whatsoever. The deployment of these systems can be seen as provocative and gives an opportunity to NK to want to 'test' these systems. So it's not really as easy as deploy this and we're safe from harm.

How can THAAD "possibly intercept communications in neighboring countries"?

THAAD cannot "track any military movement" in China or anywhere. THAAD has no ground detection ability and very limited low airspace detection ability. The only increased tracking that THAAD provides with respect to China is the detection of Chinese ballistic missile launches marginally sooner than existing and more distantly deployed radars already can.

THAAD does not have a ~50% success rate in tests--that's GMD. THAAD has a 100% success rate across 14 tests.
 
Sometimes I do get the feeling that South Korea is soon no longer an ally of the USA, it's like the people there no longer want/need help with all the chinese propaganda.

When you come at a point to choose which hegemon you want to Ally with then going with the upcoming regional hegemon is the smarter choice. You already see it with the Philippines.

Personally I think China is in its Monroe doctrine time period and trying to eject the USA out of Asia slowly. The south China sea can be seen as the Caribbean of the China.
 

*Splinter

Member
The Soseong-ri residents say they do not have a political motive but are against the deployment of THAAD as their lives have been disrupted by the dozens of military helicopters, buses, trucks that travel through the small melon-farming town of 80 residents.
Wow that's a really terrible reason to oppose this.

Sure you can argue whether it's effective or an escalation etc, but a few people complaining about being inconvenienced by a system designed to save millions of (other people's) lives is just kind of disgusting.



No idea if THAAD is the right answer or not, sounds necessary from my very limited knowledge.
 

Maztorre

Member
So basically people just want NK to be allowed to provoke and any attempt to build defenses against this are looked upon as destabilizing the region?

Because these systems are the only thing that can help avoid a huge crisis should Kim go wild without starting a war before it gets that far.

Perhaps the nations that have had to actually live in proximity to NK's conventional and nuclear weapons should have some say over a Republican US government. NK pursues nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime change, the rhetoric and actions of hawks within the US government only escalates NK's justifications.
 

llien

Member
The whole "don't provoke NK" talks, when NK is boasting it made hydrogen bomb that it can mount on a missile, while launching missiles left and right, is weird.


I can understand the protests. THAAD might protect them, but its presence definitely increases the chance of an attack by the North.

It's hard to see how presence of missiles that can stop the attack increase likelihood of the attack.

If anything, there should be new anti-missile systems surrounding NK and shooting down any missiles flying out.
 

Xando

Member
Is THAAD even effective against ICBM?
THAAD isn‘t designed to intercept ICBMs.

You could of course get lucky but it’s range is too limited to effectively intercept ICBMs on a regular basis.

It’s designed for short to midrange missiles (like scuds).
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
The fact China and Russia are more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs tells you everything you need to know.

It's blatantly obviously that NK are just a proxy to destabilise the region and lessen the US influence.
 

numble

Member
The fact China and Russia are more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs tells you everything you need to know.

It's blatantly obviously that NK are just a proxy to destabilise the region and lessen the US influence.
How are they more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs?
 

kmfdmpig

Member
I can understand the protests. THAAD might protect them, but its presence definitely increases the chance of an attack by the North.

I disagree. I don't think it's a particularly compelling deterrent, but it doesn't need to be.

North Korea knows that if it attacks Japan, Guam, Seoul, etc... that its military and leadership will be destroyed. It would literally be a suicide mission for them. Those that believe North Korea to be irrational mustache twirling villains (as opposed to somewhat rationale villains) think that will happen. Personally I don't. They want to develop nuclear weapons so that they further deter others from attacking them, not so they can preemptively start a war they're destined to lose.

If you were Kim Jong Un, after all, would your goal be to:
Inflict heavy casualties on Japan, Guam or Seoul knowing that it'll be the last thing you do
or
Continue to live comfortably with less risk of being attacked as nuclear powers are virtually never attacked?

I think the latter answer is much more likely than the former.
 
South Korea has been living under the scopes of N.Korea just fine for however long. I think what they see in THAAD is unstable dick waving that may escalate and create the situation they don't want.

I know if the US was South Korea it would be a Warzone already, because of exceptionalism. But some countries are willing to live and let live.
 

D4Danger

Unconfirmed Member
How are they more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs?

It's right there in the op

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang warned this week that further THAAD deployment "can only severely damage the strategic security balance in the region," harm the strategic interests of other countries such as China and cause further antagonism on the Korean Peninsula.

The problem is the threat not the deterrent but they don't see it that way because they support NK.
 

Daedardus

Member
How can THAAD "possibly intercept communications in neighboring countries"?

THAAD cannot "track any military movement" in China or anywhere. THAAD has no ground detection ability and very limited low airspace detection ability. The only increased tracking that THAAD provides with respect to China is the detection of Chinese ballistic missile launches marginally sooner than existing and more distantly deployed radars already can.

THAAD does not have a ~50% success rate in tests--that's GMD. THAAD has a 100% success rate across 14 tests.

That's what the US says, yes. But countries like China just fear that it can do more than what the US claim. I'm not saying China is right, but that's a big reason why countries like them oppose the full-scale deployment and has to be taken into account into geopolitical discussions. Link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...deterring-north-korea/?utm_term=.9746171b743e

And seems like I confused to the two systems, sorry for that. Looks like the track record is positive, but I still think it would be better for everyone if it doesn't need be put under a true test. And the threat for ICBM still remains, especially if they carry a nuclear warhead, where even if the missile could get intercepted but the warhead still detonated could pose dangerous environmental impact.
 

Khoryos

Member
It's the opposite. The T in THAAD is for Terminal, so it's designed to be the last ditch attempt to shoot down missiles before they land.

Sure, that's what it's designed for.

What I meant, though, was that initial boost is going to be the only time when a hypothetical ICBM is going to be A: Within THAAD's engagement envelope, B: At a speed that it could potentially cope with, and C: Not actively MIRVing.
 

Jotaka

Member
Sometimes I do get the feeling that South Korea is soon no longer an ally of the USA, it's like the people there no longer want/need help with all the chinese propaganda.

I have the impression that to SK thinks is fine as long NK can nuke Japan, it would be very happy with the result.
 

llien

Member
South Koreans don't want THAAD and US should respect their wishes.

That's fair and all, but in free societies there are groups protesting against pretty much anything, so it's up to South Korean government to have final say.

How are they more concerned about this than NK building nukes and ICBMs?

They don't perceive NK as much a threat (it doesn't target them).
On the other hand, USA increasing its anti-missile capacities lessens their own means to hit USA.

Russia has about 1000 ICBMs.
China has estimated 45-65 ICBMs.
US plans to deploy 14 GMD interceptors. (this has nothing to do with THAAD though)

Scariest stuff that Russia is possessing (or still constructing, along with submarines that could carry them) is Cobalt-59 (to turn 60) based nuclear torpedo, that would create 500m high Tsunami and contaminate wide area on an enemy coast. Expected to have range of 10'000km and travel at speed of 100km/h.

The idea of such weapon is attributed to Sakharov, who actually suggested building a ship with Cobalt-59 hull and positioning them close to New York and the likes. In case of war, nuclear bomb explosion inside the ship would create highly radioactive Cobalt-60 (it's half life is relatively short, 5.5 years)
 

numble

Member
It's right there in the op



The problem is the threat not the deterrent but they don't see it that way because they support NK.
THAAD isn't a deterrent against ICBMs, so it's deployment only encourages NK to focus on ICBMs.

Your quote also doesn't indicate why it shows they think it is more important than NK building nukes and ICBMs.
 

slit

Member
The big problem with that is if the THAAD system misses, it reveals to NK it's a paper tiger and they not only take it as provocation, but they are also emboldened as they've seen the THAAD system is unreliable.

If it misses it no longer matters since NK has just attacked someone and are now done.
 

kmfdmpig

Member
Sure, that's what it's designed for.

What I meant, though, was that initial boost is going to be the only time when a hypothetical ICBM is going to be A: Within THAAD's engagement envelope, B: At a speed that it could potentially cope with, and C: Not actively MIRVing.

Yes, it can be attempted both in the boost phase and the terminal phase, although as others say it's designed for slower/shorter range missiles primarily.

North Korea is many years away from MIRVs, so that's likely not something they're worried about at this point with them.

Unrelated:
The majority of South Koreans polled a year ago were in favor of THAAD deployment.

This has some good information for those looking to read up on the subject:
http://isdp.eu/publication/korea-thaad/
 
At first, such systems seems like a good idea. I mean, you wouldn't want to be completely defenseless, right? Citings things such as health problems are also ridiculous compared to the environmental and health impact if a missile hits target.

The main problem other governments (like China) have with THAAD is that it relies on sophisticated detection techniques to detect the incoming missiles. But since the system is 24 hours a day operational, this makes it a prime espionage system that can track any military movement and possibly intercept communication in the neighbouring countries.

And another problem with THAAD is the reliability. The chance of actually succesfully disarming a missile in flight is like 50%. The most recent tests were succesful yes, but there were even more insuccesful tests before that and nobody actually really knows what the real reliability is outside a controlled test environment. NK could still launch four missiles and THAAD could let one or two through. Thus the real question is, does it still matter that you have it? Main opponents of THAAD just really advocate for the peaceful option, that is to prevent the launch of a missile whatsoever. The deployment of these systems can be seen as provocative and gives an opportunity to NK to want to 'test' these systems. So it's not really as easy as deploy this and we're safe from harm.

your referring to the USs icmb interceptors GMD, not THAAD which only does short, medium and intermediate missiles (theater range)

THAAD is much more reliable than GMDs midcourse interception as it attacks the missile in the terminal defense. All recent thaad tests have been successful even when the military tested missiles when it did not know they were coming (something they've not tested GMDs on I believe.
 
It's the opposite. The T in THAAD is for Terminal, so it's designed to be the last ditch attempt to shoot down missiles before they land.
it is the last phase but terminal defense isn't really "last ditch" it's actually easier to hit it in terminal than midcourse. Hitting it in the boosted phase would be easiest but they would require being close to launch. Though I imagine that's an area, especially with NKs ability the US will focus on developing. I expect trump to restart bushs laser, booster phase defense program
 
But all and all it seems NK knows it will freeze it's program soon and is really trying to get its program to a point where it can freeze with an already proven and reliable ICBM that can hit the US. That gives it a ton of leverage to negotiate a better deal for itself.
 

slit

Member
But all and all it seems NK knows it will freeze it's program soon and is really trying to get its program to a point where it can freeze with an already proven and reliable ICBM that can hit the US. That gives it a ton of leverage to negotiate a better deal for itself.

I'm sure at this point a freeze would not be good enough to get anything. It would have to include dismantling.
 

llien

Member
Imagine N. Korea deploying defensive materiel in Cuba..

Washington would be crying like little babies.

US stopped it when a much more serious enemy with ICBMs that could not be intercepted tried it, why would it lead to "crying" this time?
 
Top Bottom