Korean Peninsula Developments

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
NK is about to operationalise its first SSB in the near future. It's a modified Romeo Class sub with 3 KN-26 Pukguksong-3 BM's capable of being launched from the SSB. Each missile is believed to have a single nuclear warhead.

 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
The Sunshine Policy is the theoretical basis for South Korea's foreign policy towards North Korea. Its official title is “The Reconciliation and Cooperation Policy Towards the North” and based on Five Principles — which is why Kdramas have tried to humanise the North. But the reality of North Korea is nothing like Kdramas. My current Netflix favourite is "Crashing-on-you." It's a love story and comedy about a billionaire heiresse from South Korea landing in North Korea and falling in love with Communist military officer.
I thought about watching that but then decided against it because I assumed that the humanisation would be a horrible cover for the reality.

I think South Korea's main problem regarding a long-term strategy for the peninsula is that there's a lot of residual denial about the potential for reunification. Rather those people prefer to see Japan as the enemy because they feel more comfortable with a non-Korean enemy. (South) Koreans just need to accept that re-unification can never happen until the Kim family goes and the country becomes more open - if it ever happens. The fact that North Korea is now building new ballistic submarines suggests that they're seeking to further entrench their position by relying on nuclear weapons to mitigate any conventional military defeat.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The South Korean Ambassador to the US has told the SK Parliament that SK doesn't have to remain allied to the US. This is something that probably wouldn't been said in the open 5 years ago, but because of US policy since January 2017 it is something that the SK will probably discuss openly. I don't think that they will be the only ones either.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If China invades Taiwan, will this be a game changer wrt to distancing SK from the US or will it be a wake-up moment to get on the same page asap? I suspect the former if the US lets China take Taiwan and I agree other nations in the region will probably do the same, even Japan.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
If China invades Taiwan, will this be a game changer wrt to distancing SK from the US or will it be a wake-up moment to get on the same page asap? I suspect the former if the US lets China take Taiwan and I agree other nations in the region will probably do the same, even Japan.
I agree that if the US lets China take Taiwan then there will be no point in having defence treaties with the US, because it will be fairly obvious that the US will not tangle with anyone bigger than Iraq or Syria. This is one reason I think the US doesn't have a choice in whether or not it helps Taiwan, unless it wants to give up being the number 1 global power and publicly hand that position over to China. Trying and failing would be acceptable, because a Chinese victory could be written off as Taiwan being under-prepared. The US could also push for sanctions against China. But hand-wringing whilst an invasion happens won't cut it.

As for the ROK, it will depend on whether they want to retain their current independence or are happy to become a Chinese client-state. It's impossible to know what Korean politics will be like in a couple of decades. Relations with Japan could get so bad that an openly pro-China party might win elections.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. Following the end of the Cold War — and with the change of the US global security strategy — Taiwan was no longer the metaphorical “Unsinkable aircraft carrier,” a term coined by General McArthur in 1950. Consequently, the US established formal diplomatic relations with the People Republic of China and replaced the previous security treaty with the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. The 1979 Act provided sufficient ambiguity for the US government to decide when and how they would defend Taiwan’s security. Taiwan, therefore, became a strategic “option,” instead of a necessary “must” in the American grand strategy in the post-Cold War Asia-Pacific region.

2. @John Fedup and @Musashi_kenshin, both of you have dismissed South Korea’s imperatives for national Security and launched into a hypothetical Taiwan scenario that is not remotely realistic — US allies like Korea, Thailand and the Philippines have no interest in defending Taiwan, as it is a Taiwanese responsibility.

(i) President George W. Bush’s statement in April 2001 that Washington would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan was quickly extinguished by the foreign policy establishment and never repeated. Instead, both Taipei and Beijing are left with Washington’s “strategic ambiguity” as most succinctly articulated in the Clinton administration: We might or might not come to Taiwan’s defence, “depending on the circumstances.” IMHO, it is stupid for any American President to assume such responsibility — which is why the official State Department position remains as that of ‘strategic ambiguity’.​

(ii) American opponents of strategic clarity argue that Taiwan matters more to China than it does to the United States. The Americans should not risk World War III over it. Thus, the task of American leaders is to convince Chinese civilian and military hardliners that the costs and risks of conflict with the U.S. would be catastrophic for China, destroying all they have spent 70 years building up.​

3. With this as a background, we can better understand the April 2018, Panmunjeom Declaration. Back in 2018, the two Koreas agreed to work together to reduce sharp military tensions, avoid war, and try to build an enduring peace regime.

4. The ongoing North Korea-US stalemate has literally hijacked South Korean geopolitical concerns expressed in the Panmunjeom Declaration. Currently, South Korea does not have a choice but to join the possible unnecessary war once initiated either by Pyongyang or Washington D. C. This hypothetical war will be a nuclear one and will most certainly cost millions of Korean lives. South Korea has already established economic interdependence with China. These economic entanglements have ultimately made the US-South Korea security relations even more complicated.

5. During the Trump administration, a cloud has been hovering over an alliance “blood forged” during the Korean War and formalized after hostilities ceased in 1953. Trump’s policy position has been that US allies have enjoyed a free ride at America’s expense. In 2019, the US tried to raise the annual cost-sharing burden to be paid by Seoul for its hosting of GIs from just under Special Measures Agreement for the upkeep of 28,500 American troops stationed on the peninsula — from US$870 million in 2019 to about US$5 billion in 2020. Further, both of you show no awareness that any war on the Korean peninsula can result in a nuclear exchange that kills millions of South Koreans. In Oct 2020, South Korea’s imperatives for national Security still involves avoiding a nuclear war with the North and keeping China, as North Korea’s largest aid provider, appeased.

6. Choosing not to side with Taiwan, given Trump’s transactional view of all alliances is a no brainer for the South Koreans.

7. Without effort in basic research, you will get more rubbish-in, rubbish-out posts. May I suggest that you rethink your approach when writing about Korea.
 
Last edited:

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
@John Fedup and @Musashi_kenshin, both of you have dismissed South Korea’s imperatives for national Security and launched into a hypothetical Taiwan scenario that is not remotely realistic — US allies like Korea, Thailand and the Philippines have no interest in defending Taiwan, as it is a Taiwanese responsibility.
With all due respect, I don't think either of us mentioned the ROK coming to help Taiwan. The issue is whether anyone will have confidence in US defence agreements if it's clear Washington will fold as soon as any large powers get involved. There's no point having a treaty with the US if it's only good in case you get involved with a conflict with Zimbabwe.

The fact that the US does not have a defence treaty with Taiwan is irrelevant as far as most countries will see it. They'll see it as a matter of China getting its way and humiliating the US, i.e. that the US will never square up against China but just automatically fold. If the US failed to come to the aid of the ROK or Japan, neither country could force a deployment by going to the US courts. It's about political will. If there is no will in Washington to stand up to China, a treaty has the same value as toilet paper.

That's not a "rubbish" post, it's a legitimate viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Taiwan can legitimately be classed as a special case, though, because whatever you think of the morality of it, the USA has never recoggnised it as a completely separate state from the mainland. For a long time the USA recognised the KMT government in Taiwan as the legitimate government of all China, then switched to recognising the CCP government in Beijing as the government of all China, & Taiwan as merely a separately governed region of China.

There's no other country or territory in the same position.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
There's no other country or territory in the same position.
There are a few. Somaliland is one I can think of right now. (Unless you're talking about the switching of recognition of the government.)

But in some respects you're right. Taiwan is quite unique in that most of the developed world recognises it is independent but doesn't say so for a variety of reasons.

It's also unique because the US has put a lot of political/diplomatic capital into continuing arms sales there, despite the fact that China has repeatedly demanded they stopped - and even quoted previous US agreements to do so.

I just take the side of those that think if the US lets China take Taiwan (as opposed to tries and fails to stop it) it will make the US look weak and an unreliable power in the face of a strong aggressor. I can accept some countries might cling to their defence treaties with the US in hope they'll work out, but I can equally see them being chucked in the shredder.

Anyway, I'd rather not be blamed for derailing the thread, so I'll leave it there.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Somaliland's never been recognised as a legitimate government, & AFAIK no major country has ever backed it. Nobody'd be letting it down if they stood by while the Mogadishu government took it over, though given their respective degrees of organisation & control of their own territory that isn't on the cards for a long time, if ever.

But yes, we've wandered a little far.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
The fact that the US does not have a defence treaty with Taiwan is irrelevant as far as most countries will see it. They'll see it as a matter of China getting its way and humiliating the US, i.e. that the US will never square up against China but just automatically fold.
8. While we can agree to disagree, I believe you are wrong. US policy is to treat Taiwan not as an ally but an irritant to give China a hard time.
If the US failed to come to the aid of the ROK or Japan, neither country could force a deployment by going to the US courts. It's about political will. If there is no will in Washington to stand up to China, a treaty has the same value as toilet paper.
9. You are shifting the goal post and refusing to acknowledge that you are wrong — unlike ROK and Japan, Taiwan does not matter to the US nor to US allies within ASEAN.

10. In contrast to Taiwan, not only have the Americans stood by Japan in providing a security guarantee, the US has also approved some US$20 billion in foreign military sales to Japan, including Japan's purchase of F-35s, E-2D airborne early warning aircraft, the KC-46 refueling tanker, the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system and MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, as well as missiles such as the AIM 120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, and UGM-84 Harpoon and SM-3 Block IIA ballistic missile defense interceptor missiles.

11. The Japanese government provides nearly US$2 billion per year to offset the cost of stationing the 55,000 U.S. forces in 85 facilities across Japan. Therefore, Japan is a totally different category as an ally with a firm commitment from the Americans.
Anyway, I'd rather not be blamed for derailing the thread, so I'll leave it there.
12. Thanks, let’s go back to discussing the Koreans, with some updates on their general military capability and also on their missile capability development.

13. North Korea unveiled new missile capabilities during a recent military parade to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Korean Workers’ Party.

14. Michael Elleman and Vann H. Van Diepen provide an initial assessment of the missile systems on show. The new missile, in principle, could deliver 2000–3500 kg to any point on CONUS. This is more capable than Soviet R-16 or R-26 ICBMs.

15. The threat from North Korea has not abated—a fact North Korea pointedly reminded the international community of when it blew up the inter-Korean liaison office in Jun 2020. The new North Korean missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs and ICBMs) serve as bargaining chips in any negotiation, and they subtly push U.S. and South Korean elites back to diplomacy. Without them, North Korea is more easily subject to coercion and isolation. The Americans particularly could threaten force credibly, because North Korea lacked the ability to strike the U.S. mainland in response. Now it can. As long as the North Korean threat remains, a strong US–South Korea defense posture to deter aggression and defend the peninsula remains necessary. Pandemic or not, combined military exercises play an important role in making sure that the US and South Korea are prepared for such scenarios.
 
Last edited:

Beholder

Active Member
I agree that if the US lets China take Taiwan then there will be no point in having defence treaties with the US, because it will be fairly obvious that the US will not tangle with anyone bigger than Iraq or Syria.
And what will happen then? I mean what is a backup plan if China won't stop? And why other countries don't implement it now?
I don't remember US guaranteed to defend Taiwan. I think current US will certainly defend current Taiwan, but all can change with time.
And military balance also can change with time.

This is one reason I think the US doesn't have a choice in whether or not it helps Taiwan, unless it wants to give up being the number 1 global power and publicly hand that position over to China.
Ok, so now US is number 2 and China number 1, so what will other countries will do? Run to China and declare her as new "Leader of democratic world"? :)

As for the ROK, it will depend on whether they want to retain their current independence or are happy to become a Chinese client-state. It's impossible to know what Korean politics will be like in a couple of decades. Relations with Japan could get so bad that an openly pro-China party might win elections.
It's interesting. Becoming Chinese client state is clearly lack of national self preservation. IMO
I mean is it really impossible for ROK to think of other alternatives, just wait US to save them, or resist alone, or surrender to China?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Taiwan isn’t a jewel in the USA’s national interest per se but any appearance of sacrificing Taiwan might not sit well with many in Congress and as for the American electorate, who knows these days.

ASEAN won’t make an issue about Taiwan but all will be concerned about what other Chinese moves are in store if the US gives the impression it’s ASEAN’s problem alone. Japan is already significantly increasing defence spending and that is partly to appease the US but also is likely a realization US support may be unreliable down the road. SK’s ongoing feud with Japan is in China’s interest. Another possible way for China to screw things is making a Korean reunification possible. The economic drain on SK would be immense in comparison to German reunification.

The wildcard is what effect a change in the US administration will have, wrt to Taiwan probably not much, maybe better times for ASEAN and perhaps a serious effort to get SK and Japan on the same page.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Korea’s forward line of defence against SRBMs, MRBMs and IRBMs — Part 1

1. In Dec 2020, PAC-3 deliveries to South Korea became complete, which means better upper-to-middle-tier missile network against North Korean missiles by addition of a new onion layer.
(a) In Dec 2018, a Korean order of 64 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Missile order; with the AN/MPQ-65 radar. The AN/MPQ-65 is a passive radar meaning it does not emit any signals, but instead collects signals edited from aircraft. This allows the radar to remain undetected as it tracks targets. The upgraded radar can track up to 100 targets at once.​
(b) To enhance its low-tier missile network, called the Korea Air and Missile Defense system, or KAMD, South Korea plans to acquire two more EL/M-2080 ground-based anti-missile early warning radars.“The missile defense system is to have a larger defense area with increased intercept capabilities,” the ministry said in a statement.​
(c) By upgrading its older Patriot PAC-2 missile systems; and introducing in late 2020, the new KM-SAM or Cheongung II (Iron Hawk) missile systems (along with the development of the higher end L-SAM), Korea has established a dense layer defense capability to intercept new types of North Korean ballistic missiles more effectively. The L-SAM refers to a locally made long-range surface-to-air missile that is expected to complete development and be introduced in the 2024.​
(d) On 27 Nov 2020, the KM-SAM or Cheongung II (Iron Hawk) system, as its mid-to-low-tier missile system (that can intercept targets up to an altitude of 15 km (49,000 ft) at a range of 40 km), was delivered to the South Korean Air Force as its low-tier missile network. It is to replace upgraded MIM-23 Hawk batteries in South Korea. A complete battery consists of up to six 8-cell TELs, a PESA X-band multi-function phased array 3D radar, and a fire command vehicle. The radar operates in the X-band and rotates at a rate of 40 rpm, covering up to 80 degrees in elevation. It can detect targets within 100 km and track up to 40 simultaneously.​

2. Years of pledges by South Korean defense officials have produced little observable progress toward making the separate American and Korean missile systems interoperable, despite benefits. South Korea has multiple layers of missile defence with THAAD as the upper-most-tier missile network. THAAD sits above the PAC-3 layer (at Seongju, and covers most of the major airbases and lines of communication and supply in the country). PAC-3 and THAAD missiles are well integrated, as a Oct 2020 White Sands test shows.
(a) Each THAAD unit consists of six truck-mounted launchers, 48 interceptors, a fire control and communications unit, and an AN/TPY-2 radar. The AN/TPY-2 radar is located at Lotte Skyhill Seongju Country Club, farther from the town's main residential areas and higher in elevation, to alleviate concerns of residents in Seongju County residents, who feared that radiation emitted by the AN/TPY-2 radar would impact their health, and damage the region's famed oriental melon crop.​
(b) In a major Korean conflict, tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel would deploy to Korea over time largely through the Pusan port area in southeastern Korea. They would be most vulnerable to a North Korean nuclear weapon attack while in the port area and while assembling to depart from Pusan. Not protecting exposed military personnel from the North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear weapon threat would be irresponsible, the US concluded.​
(c) North Korea's missile advances across the board are cause for concern. The risks and vulnerabilities are out in the open: South Korea’s indigenous missile defense efforts are developing too slowly to counter North Korean progress; especially the Intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM).​
3. Chinese and North Korean IRBMs have a range of 3,000 to 5,500 km (i.e. the distance from China to Guam). In particular, North Korea’s Hwasong-12 IRBMs (which are single-stage, liquid propellant missiles) have a range of 4,500 km.
(a) The location of the THAAD AN/TPY-2 and AN/MPQ-65 radars and interceptors in Korea close to China, would make it possible, at least in principle, for the American and Korean radars to track Chinese and North Korean ICBMs and IRBMs very early after a launch and to guide 2 to 3 types of interceptors against them. This means China cannot attack Guam without having to attack these powerful radars in South Korea.​
(b) To add to the complication, China put the economic pressure on South Korea for agreeing to the deployment in 2016. Any halt in implementation of the THAAD deployment who be see as an acquiescence to China’s pressure and thereby invite even more pressure on Seoul on each occasion that China is dissatisfied with new South Korean defense measures.​
4. Despite claims to the contrary, US interceptors launched from Korea or the 7th Fleet in Japan, could intercept up to 25 Chinese ICBMs based in the North of China. Furthermore, the 40% faster speed of THAAD and PAC-3 MSE interceptors relative to the ICBMs and the early-tracking information provided by the Americans would allow the defense system to engage essentially all Chinese ICBMs launched against the continental United States. Beyond just defence, the US Army has selected variants of the US Navy’s SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles to be part of the initial prototype. The US Army will leverage US Navy contracts for missile procurement in support of this testing and it has chosen to adopt the US Navy's SM-6 missile to satisfy its ground-based Mid-Range Capability (MRC) as part of its larger Long-Range Precision Fires initiative. The MRC missile (using the SM-6 body and parts) is to be fielded in an operational capacity in 2023, to perform strike missions.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Korea’s forward line of defence against SRBMs, MRBMs and IRBMs — Part 2

5. By placing a THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar and its interceptors on hill in Seongju, the US can also attempt to protect the large South Korean urban areas of Pusan, Kwangju, Pohang, and Daegu, as well. It also places the THAAD battery beyond the range of many of the North's more proven weapons, such as its long-range artillery (THAAD does not protect Seoul).

(a) In Jun 2009, the US deployed a THAAD unit to Hawaii, along with the SBX sea-based radar, to defend against North Korea.​

(b) In Apr 2013, the United States declared that the 4th Air Defense Artillery Regiment was deployed to Guam.​

(c) In a Oct 2020 test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, a THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar detected and tracked a Black Dagger target missile and provided that information to the Patriot system. The Patriot launch system deployed a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (MSE) missile and destroyed the target.​

6. THAAD's successful intercept of an intermediate-range ballistic missile in July 2017 demonstrated US Army’s ability to potentially stop the North Korean theater ballistic missiles, including IRBMs in the above chart.
(a) The US Navy’s SM-3 IIA missiles (as exo-atmospheric missile defense interceptors) are even more capable.​

This should reassure US military forces in Guam and Korea, but also the 10 million or so South Koreans who reside in the region covered by THAAD. For details see: Why THAAD Is Needed in Korea

7. China often complains about THAAD's over-the-horizon radar, which can detect targets at long ranges and potentially collect information inside China, but China has reportedly deployed at least two similar radars in the area surrounding the Korean Peninsula, including a S-400 missile defense system, which is similar to THAAD, on the Shandong Peninsula.

8. China should recognize that if it needs such long-range radars to defend against North Korean missiles, it is only fair for the US to put in place similar capabilities to defend South Korea.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
BZ to Korea for remembering Korean War veterans in 22 countries. These old UN forces guys fought and bled for Korea.

1. According to John Bolton, the 12 Jun 2018 Singapore Summit, between Kim Jong-un and Trump, failed because Trump did not understand the issues — Dr Vivian Balakrishnan as Singapore’s Foreign Minister, and as peace summit host, gave a proper briefing to Trump on the issues (that fell on Trump’s deaf ears).

(a) As much as you think you know about the arrogance, vanity and sheer incompetence of Trump’s years in the White House, Bolton’s account will still astonish you. He seems to have collated every Trump rant, reckless phone call and muttered aside. No wonder the White House was so determined to block this book: It eviscerates Trump’s foreign policy record and exposes him, in Bolton’s words, as 'stunningly uninformed.'​
(b) In Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir”, he documents the erratic and manipulative moves of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, to the showdowns at the G7 summits, the calculated warmongering by Iran, the crazy plan to bring the Taliban to Camp David, and the placating of an authoritarian China that ultimately exposed the world to its lethal lies.​
(c) Bolton sets out to describe Trump's ego and narcissism and also reveals a good deal about his own. Like Trump, he finds others to blame when his predictions or wagers go awry. What sets this book apart is implied in its title. The overall tone suggests the diary of a tutor who has endured many frustrating months with a spoiled and inattentive pupil who ignores his lessons and regards his tutor as expendable.​
(d) Bolton clearly does not expect to attract the casual reader, or people unable to digest Latin in sentences, like the one on the 3rd page:​
'Constant personnel turnover obviously didn't help, nor did the White House's Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes ('war of all against all').​
But through it all, Bolton has a great eye for the Washington inside game, and his story is full of wit and wry humor about how he saw it played.​

2. Dr Balakrishnan made whirlwind visits to the US and North Korea, to ensure that preparations for the historic US-North Korea summit in Singapore will go through without any glitch. While he did not reveal the nature of his talks with his North Korean counterpart Ri Yong Ho, citing sensitivities, he said he walked away from his visit with a better understanding of the isolated nation.

3. Even the US Secretary of State, Pompeo admits that Dr Balakrishnan is “a good friend, teacher, and explainer of all things in your neck of the woods.” Clearly Singapore’s Foreign Affairs establishment did its best to host the Trump-Kim summit and that Singapore’s close commercial and military partnership with the US is better thanks to Dr Balakrishnan’s efforts.

4. After 20 Jan 2021, upon confirmation by the Senate, Blinken will take over from Pompeo. Hopefully, the US will finally appoint an ambassador to Singapore. Unlike the ignorant Trump, Blinken speaks fluent French and in his roles in the NSC under Obama and as deputy secretary of state, Blinken advocated for more robust U.S. involvement in the Syria conflict. Notably he broke with his boss, Biden, to support the armed intervention in Libya. He was also a close aide to Biden when the then-senator supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He continues to believe that diplomacy needs to be “supplemented by deterrence” and “force can be a necessary adjunct to effective diplomacy.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

From HI Sutton site. I put in here since seems this new Pukguksong SLBM is bit bigger to put on their Romeo Based missile subs. Kim already boast North Korea intentions to build nuclear submarine. Most likely if they can do it, it will be SSBN. So far they're only using old Romeo tech as based. It's not impossible for them to build SSBN, however still interesting what they're going to based on.

Even old 60's Yankee SSBN will be significant development for North Korean submarine fleet.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Hey @John Fedup I certainly missed any Japanese or South Korean plan/rhetoric about nuclear weapons. Care to clarify?
Not asking for an essay or sources, just your short explanation.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
...certainly missed any Japanese or South Korean plan/rhetoric about nuclear weapons. Care to clarify?
The starting point is that N. Korea is a nuclear state. What I am saying is not capable of being substantiated and I can’t provide reputable links. To match the N. Koreans, the South Koreans want for prestige reasons, a space program to match Japan (the Korea Aerospace Research Institute was established in 1989), an nuclear industry that exports the APR1400 reactor and power plants with a generating capacity from 1000MW to 1400MW, with a design lifetime of 60 years; and eventually even a SSBN with VL tubes (to match N. Korea aspirations). This is evident in the KSS-III class submarines with 6 VL tubes.

This South Korean capability being developed is not designed to attack N. Korea, or even China. Their goal is one day to fix ‘Japan’, due to the Korean concept of race.

Let me skip the creepy reasons why Hawks in Japan want to be a pre-nuclear power. But you should know that despite pacifism of their society in general, we see some of these creepy LDP people WHEN they come to celebrate their war criminals.
@OPSSG The Samson Option is a myth that was never verified and does not seem to have a single source as far as I know. It asserts that Israel will nuke every country on earth if it falls, but it doesn't make sense on any level.
Haha, glad you said that.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The starting point is that N. Korea is a nuclear state. What I am saying is not capable of being substantiated and I can’t provide reputable links. To match the N. Koreans, the South Koreans want for prestige reasons, a space program to match Japan (the Korea Aerospace Research Institute was established in 1989), an nuclear industry that exports the APR1400 reactor and power plants with a generating capacity from 1000MW to 1400MW, with a design lifetime of 60 years; and eventually even a SSBN with VL tubes (to match N. Korea aspirations). This is evident in the KSS-III class submarines with 6 VL tubes.

This South Korean capability being developed is not designed to attack N. Korea, or even China. Their goal is one day to fix ‘Japan’, due to the Korean concept of race.

Let me skip the creepy reasons why Hawks in Japan want to be a pre-nuclear power. But you should know that despite pacifism of their society in general, we see some of these creepy LDP people WHEN they come to celebrate their war criminals.

Haha, glad you said that.
Oh OPSSG, everything's an essay with you, lol.

I'm genuinely intrigued about this Japanese-South Korean hate thing.
Can you explain a little bit about why they have beef with each other?
 
Top