‘THAAD’ DEPLOYMENT TO SOUTH KOREA
Introduction
Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile launching defense system has remained to spark serious protest and backlash issues at home. In addition to that, it should be noted that THAAD offers extensive ballistic missile defenses system which are globally transportable, rapidly deployable capacity to the extent of destroying and intercepting ballistic missiles outside and inside the atmosphere during its final phase of flight (Green et al, 2016).
THAAD’s powerful system has the capacity of making a country to be a key military target. Because of this, the government South Korea and its ministry of defense is necessitated to look for means of minimizing any negative effects posed by the THAAD not only to its citizens but also to the environment (Sheehan, 1996). The reason for this is because an unprecedented political scandal has for decades now engulfed South Korea. This sort of scandal commenced because of the views regarding the Blue House officials which was exerted under the general influence of the federations of Korean industries in donating millions of dollars to some non-profit foundations. Therefore, the essence of this paper is to explain the political and socioeconomic implication of the THAAD deployment in South Korean in respect to the various theories;
To begin with, the uncertainty of the South Korean strategic initiatives has the capacity of paralyzing progress in its security arrangements which entails acquiring reliable nuclear weapons. This makes its nuclear threat or deal to be more tangible and real. Conversely the tremors which will be caused by this security system have grown extensively to the extent of making the South Korean missile technology to advance to the extent where the missiles can be able to reach close to the territory of Japan. Most precisely, it appears that there is the need of building nuclear device which are relatively smaller enough so that it can be mounted on a missile (Green et al, 2016).
Conversely, the balance of power theory indicates that the bilateral security arrangements among Japan, United States and South Korea remains to be perceived as being critical when it comes to addressing the increasing North Korea nuclear threat to other states. Because of this, the government is forced to take necessary steps of strengthening trilateral cooperation. Despite that one, it has been noted is that the South Korean leadership has extensively mired some political scandal at some point when it should be in the forefront of leading the way of carrying some of these strategic initiatives as well as addressing the North Korean nuclear threat with its enemies or regional partners. In other words, the failure of the South Korean in taking the lead will most properly imply mean delay in these initiatives thus impending greater trilateral cooperation (Kelleher et al, 2015).
Nevertheless, the fate of the major strategic initiatives which ought to be have been implemented are now in jeopardy. This is because of the unprecedented as well bizarre South Korean political scandal which continues to engulf it. Although the effect of this scandal is being taken into consideration, its government will be forced to take up such plans. For now, the perceived future of these major agreements have become more unstable and uncertain thus leaving South Korea in a paralyzed and precarious situation even if North Korea continues to make extensive progress in its nuclear weapon program (Green et al, 2016).
Because of the above considerations, it has been noted that South Korea and the United States have now reached an agreement decision in order to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile battery to the U.S. This in return has necessitated Korea to ensure that the security of Korea are taken into greater consideration to the extent of protecting North Korea alliance forces from the weapons of mass destruction as well as ballistic missile threats of South Korea. In other words, the multiple ballistic and nuclear missile tests, which comprises of the recent intermediate missile attempts, highlights the grave threat which is posed by the North Korean to the stability and security of South Korea and the whole of Pacific region (Kelleher et al, 2015).
Furthermore, with respect to the evolving threat from the North Korea, the United States as well as the government of South Korea has been forced to conduct formal consultations regarding the feasibility of deploying nuclear weapons (Lee, 2016). Due to these move, the joint working indicates that the military effectiveness of the THAAD on Korean Peninsula has extreme devastating effect on the environment, safety requirements and health concerns. Therefore, it means that South Korea and United States will embark on establishing swift deployment strategies of the THAAD battery which will assist them in developing safe and environmental friendly operation procedures. In other words, the deployment of THAAD system to the Korean Peninsula will be focused mainly on the nuclear and missile threats from North Korea. This means that any of these military activities will not be directed to any of the third party nations. The deployment of the THAAD will largely contribute to the layered missile defense which will foster the alliance’s existing missile defense capabilities against the North Korean missile threats (Patrick, 2010).
Another point of concern is the effectiveness of THAAD to Seoul. Basically, it is argued that the deployment of THAAD military missiles may not prove to be effective in protecting Seoul. The location of Seoul is over 200 km from the proposed missile installment location. This means that it will be away from the protected zone to be provided by the THAAD system. Despite that, it can be said that it wise to offer sufficient protection to the US troops to be stationed in any site. This is the main reason as to why the Korean government had to meet with the president of the United States in order to discuss the THAAD system in the first place (Kelleher et al, 2015).
In accordance to the above views, it is clear that THAAD forms the main element of the multilayer defense program of the United States in the region. Its main objective is defending its troops. This has in return sparked profound regional controversy. For instance, because of that, both Russia, China and North Korea have decided to object although the prime reason for this is the envisaging the beginning of ‘new Cold War’ as some critics perceive it. To point out, since the official release of the THAAD deployment statement, China remained to be strongly objected to that decision thus requesting the government of South Korea to terminate such plans (Lee, 2016). Because of the differing political views of the two states, China ended up restricting the importation of variety of audio-visual K-pop music from it. Since China is the largest trading partner of South Korea, such retaliation is a huge concern to the South Korean economy.
In connection to that, before the announcement of the THAAD mission, Russia and China ended up issuing a joint statement. The objective behind this was to express their concern over the unilateral operation of the antimissile systems all over the world. This then means that such operations were non-constructive hence negatively affecting the global as well as the regional security, stability, and strategic balance (Stewart, 2006). In addition to that, the deployment of the THAAD systems, more especially in Northeast Asia, will ultimately infringe the security interests of countries found in that region. In response to that, Russia and China considered this strategy as being detrimental hence the need of ensuring that US have had their primary military security within their range.
Equally, it can be argued that the general decision of deploying the THAAD missile systems will deter the North Korean attacks thus pushing China to increase pressure on strategies so that it can be able to roll back its weapon programs.
It is clear that technological advancement in the field of military is the one which has contributed to the establishment o the THAAD missile systems. Regardless of that, the implication of the nuclear standoff to the Korean Peninsula will be much disastrous for the region; particularly in case the logic of striking first to do away with the capacity of others was to prevail (Patrick, 2010). With these views, it can be illustrated that the alternative solution ought to be in place. This includes things like building trust in both counties and between China and United States. The reason for this is because both of these countries are extremely suspicious about the ambition of each other in matters dealing with Korean Peninsula and South China Sea.
The effectiveness of THAAD, to some extent, is somehow difficult to prove. Typically, with genuinely imaginative ideas as well as military approaches based on both forward-looking and trust-building negotiations, either of the two Korean states can be in the position of finding means of solving this untenable dilemma without being caught up in the hegemony game that is currently being played out by China and United States. However, this is still a big challenge to tackle (Lee, 2016).
Considering the above views, it can be stated that in case the assessment of THAAD is perceived as being correct, it means that the system will provide clear protection to the Seoul residents while threatening other states. Although it can be argued that this may not do anything I combating such threats, South Korea will remain to be the key military target thus making the North Korean artillery missile deployment strategies to be relevant to the current conflict. South Korea will then have to consider buying its own THAAD missile launching system so as to be able to offer genuine or realistic national coverage into the future (Stewart, 2006). This is because, it decision should not be based on the complimentary actions of the ROK military but on the international and regional security implications of such decision.
Once, the common sentiment in this is that the premeditated collateral imposed on South Korea by this missile strategy will force its diplomats to consider their extensive inaction steps on North Korea’s nuclear efforts. This can also be coupled with the views that the THAAD system will ultimately destroy the international relationship of these states which in return has profound economic repercussions. Likewise, although little analysis taken does not indicate the manner in which the THAAD missile system will shape South Korea or its neighboring states, its impact can be based on the missile intercepting aspect of this system. In other words, this assumption does not account for any major THAAD component that communicates and identifies the main location of the missile targets to the interceptor (Sheehan, 1996). This is to say that the main concern of the South Korean republic is not only the component of the THAAD war system but on the detection capacity to be provided through it.
Similarly, the possibility here is that to some extent, the THAAD system will increase the anxiety of the neighboring states which in return will spur reprisals. Perhaps, but the fact is that these will be the major risks now that South Korea is closer to the nuclear-tipped missile. The likelihood is that it will remain to be on track of building dozens of these systems in the next decade (Lee, 2016).
Even so, it is its missile as well as nuclear programs that will remain to be the real challenge to the stable conventional deterrence on its territory. Nuclear missilization will of course offer it a growing systematic advantage. Therefore, failing to respond to it will mean that South Korean will be more vulnerable to nuclear first strike or nuclear blackmail in case of the crisis escalades the existing conflict. Whatever the risk or challenges the THAAD deployment will impose, the inaction of the South Korean government to it is greater (Patrick, 2010). All that should be noted is that THAAD has the capacity of mitigating these risks without offensively threatening its neighbors.
Due to the fact that THAAD system is much more importantly symbolic unlike it is in reality, such a symbolic must be discounted. This is because it clearly indicates security interests which lie in South Korea. Another reason for this is because the succession of North Korea’s nuclear tests demonstrates the significance and, indeed, the general incompetence of South Korea’s foreign policy establishment (Sheehan, 1996). Because of this, the entire situation speaks of the futility of trying to take control over nuclear weapons. What this means that even with international intervention, it is relatively hard to eliminate the continued production of nuclear weapons or stop new acquirers of these weapons. Besides that, the acquisition of nuclear missiles cannot be efficiently defended against, particularly in quantity. Since our contemporary world is doomed to some unprecedented holocaust at the same time, all it means is that humanity cannot survive humanity (Stewart, 2006).
I order to ease tension imposed in South Korea as by its enemies, there is the need of taking some kinds of provocative actions. To be more precise, the consideration for this is that there is no need of expanding or taking additional military steps. The reality is that allies should also try to coordinate all their military operations to the extent of addressing their conflicts.
What’s more is that the deployment of THAAD to South Korea will definitely contribute to the rise of tension than its reduction. The reason for this is because of its perceived implication on the global standoff. Equally, it is evident that the current system of the nuclear equality is built upon a number of principles. One of these principles postulates that the missile nuclear attack that is to be launched to South Korea by another country will most probably inflict some unacceptable damage despite of whether it wins or loses in the end (FELS, 2016). Therefore, the truth is that the deployment of THAAD missile to South Korea will be harmful to the whole world. Another consideration for this is that, given the increasing speed of the missile, the defending country will definitely be unable to evacuate its citizens. Because of that, it means that South Korea will be forced to respond through launching its nuclear missiles. This will render both of the countries to destruction from such attacks. The question that arises from this is whether it will make sense to embark on a no-win war negotiations. Thus, understanding or acknowledging the brutality and meaningless of war will be the best means of maintaining peace. Despite that one, from time to time some nations used to fall into an illusion that they have the potential of overplaying their opponents and because of this believe they respond by launching missiles (Patrick, 2010). The truth here is that deploying THAAD in South Korea will increase its capacity of fighting its enemies.
As far as military operations are concerned, the deployment of THAAD in South Korea is intended at defending not only the structure but also its citizens and core military capacities underpinning the U.S-Korea treaty (FELS, 2016). Therefore, it will not be the universal remedy for the potential vulnerability of South Korea’s missile attacks from North Korea but it will appreciably strengthen the Seoul still and limited missile defense capacities. This will explicitly link it to greater assets of US.
Contrary to the above considerations, THAAD deployment in South Korea will imply that it will underestimate its determinations of proceeding with missile defense strategies. This will tie Seoul much more to the long term cooperation with US. To some states like China, this decision is unwelcomed although it is crucial to offer appropriate defense. In association to that, the reality is that THAAD deployment in South Korea will serve as the precise means of protecting its vital national security interests (Stewart, 2006).
Moreover, some critics argue that the deployment of THAAD in South Korea will definitely undermine the strategic balance that is already established in the Asian-Pacific Region. These views are tied with the fact that THAAD is capable of whipping up the tension in the region. This means that it will make resolutions of the current complicated political situation on the Korean Peninsula together with its denuclearization to be even more challenging (Sheehan, 1996).
As noted above, the impact of THAAD deployment in South Korea is that it will assist its patriot missile defenses to be in the position o stopping short-range North Korean Scud missiles. This is because it is designed to seize longer-range missiles like those of North Korea which has the possibility of travelling much higher speed in the process of reentering the atmosphere. Contrary to that, at the first instance it is suggested that South Korea does not have any plans of deploying THAAD systems since it does posses them. The plan is the deployment of alternative THAAD systems. Because of these contradicting views, the deployment of THAAD in South Korea is all about deploying some of the U.S. THAAD battery which is aimed at its forces from the North Korean nuclear weapon threats (Lee, 2016).
Consequently, it will be extremely hard to determine or predict the manner in which its neighbors will react with respect to the influence of U.S. military in South Korea. For example, given the great power ambitions of countries like China, there will be instances of introduction of strong to THAAD deployment. The idea behind this is that such an objection will be seen as a crucial diversionary tactic more especially drawing the attention from the failure of such states to meaningfully influence the behavior of North Korea (FELS, 2016). This will make China to progress with its existing course and rhetoric thus punishing South Korea economically.
Alternatively, the deployment of THAAD systems in South Korea cannot be perceived as the best or fake military strategy to take. Most probably, this deployment has the ability of changing the dynamics as well as the terms of military debate resulting to profound Chinese intervention to North Korea in order to curb its missile and nuclear threats (Patrick, 2010). Needless to say, United States and South Korea should do an effective job of explaining their defensive rationale and resolve to the government of China and its people. The major issue here among other arguments should be the danger it will impose whilst allowing North Korea nuclear weapon program to progress with its unfettered growth.
Although some critics argue that THAAD deployment in South Korea will result into various political problems, its deployment will cause regional or global instability. In other words, in case the THAAD system is completely ineffective, we can say that its adversaries ought to be happy because of the opportunity costs to be incurred by South Korea and United States. In response to that, the two states will be forced to have considerable foreign investment since their firms are important to the world economies (FELS, 2016). This is to say that being that the market size of China makes South Korea to be more vulnerable to economic countermeasures; THAAD deployment come retaliation would hurt the economic growth of the two states.
In line with that, it is evident that South Korea is a presidential system that has strong executive powers, particularly in the area of national security policy. Thus, the deployment of THAAD systems will mean that it will not require any legislative approval. Being that there have been protests about the expansion as well as the building of its military base, it means that in case citizens and activists are able to reverse this decision, this will lead to dangerous consequences. The general acquiescence to these demands will be perceived as being the weakness and lack of resolve by the South Korean government (Kelleher et al, 2015). Caving in to the existing threats would majorly embolden those who consider more deadly threats, for instance as a nuclear attack.
To sum up, THAAD deployment in South Korea has an adverse impact on both political and socioeconomic development. Moreover, being that the nuclear blackmail from its neighboring countries would not be credible, setting up a precedent for the appeasement will typically encourage more attempts at coercion.
Bibliography
Stewart P. 2006. Weak States and Global Threats: Fact or Fiction?
Sheehan M. 1996. The Meaning of the Balance of Power. In The Balance of Power: History and Theory, chap. 1, 1-23. New York: Routledge Press
Patrick A. M. 2010. European Journal of International RelationS. SAGE Press
Christopher L. 2012. This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana
Green, Michael, Kathleen Hicks, Mark Cancian, Zack Cooper, John Schaus, and Ernest Z. Bower. 2016. Asia-Pacific rebalance 2025: capabilities, presence, and partnerships : an independent review of U.S. defense strategy in the Asia-Pacific. http://csis.org/files/publication/160119_Green_AsiaPacificRebalance2025_Web_0.pdf.
Kelleher, Catherine McArdle, and Peter J. Dombrowski. 2015. Regional missile defense from a global perspective.
Lee, Chung Min. 2016. Fault lines in a rising Asia. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1232692.
FELS, E. (2016). Shifting Power in Asia-Pacific?: the Rise of China, Sino-US Competition and Regional Middle Power Allegiance. Cham, SWITZERLAND, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4732585.
