Quotes of the Day:

“States and political movements wage wars on the basis--one would like to think--of internal consensus reflected and expressed in some recognized form as a national goal. The reality may often be a projection, sometimes coherent, more often contradictory, of a loose and shifting alliance of political forces serving particularist ends. National policymakers find such conditions messy and intolerable. In seeking to impose order upon circumstances which are inherently disorderly, they may deceive themselves, thus becoming more prone to miscalculation than if working under more modest assumptions. In such circumstances, it may well be (as it is today) that the actors in the international arena have quite different perceptions as to whether they are or are not at war. Such misperceptions, or more accurately, difference of perceptions, may be acknowledged, or denied, or recognized and purposefully manipulated. In any event, the conditions are conducive to the conduct of political warfare.”

- Paul Smith, On Political War

"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."

- Winston Churchill

"One of the most important factors in life, politics and war, to which historians tend to devote too little attention, is sheer luck, good or ill."

- Robert Rhodes James

1. Korea’s Yoon won American hearts, but concerns linger over nuclear umbrella

2. Yoon expresses thanks to Bidens for their 'truly warmest welcome'

3. N. Korea slams allies' deterrence plan as 'legal justification' for strategic asset dispatch

4. What Is behind Insistence on "Legitimacy" of U.S. Strategic Asset Deployment: International Security Analyst

5. N.Korea Insults Biden, Slams Defense Agreement with Seoul

6. Yoon says US could use nukes to defend Seoul, muddying waters around summit deal

7. Moscow: ‘Seoul-Washington nuke agreement could spark arms

8. South Korea’s Yoon Demonstrates Firm Pro-West Stance in DC Visit

9.  Party's over (ROK and the Summit)

10. Official says no plans for now to form three-way nuke deterrence consultative body with U.S., Japan

11. Alliance with U.S. dramatically upgraded to 'nuclear deterrence alliance': national security adviser

12. Korea rising as a defense supplier amid global tensions

13. Deterrence, reassurance, and can kicking: The Washington Declaration

1. Korea’s Yoon won American hearts, but concerns linger over nuclear umbrella

Yes, words have meaning: Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) (ROK/US Alliance) verus Nuclear Planning Group (NPG (NATO). The ROK/US Alliance is designing an organization to meet the unique requirements of the alliance and it is a mistake to compare with NATO.

Since I am not a nuclear planning expert please take my thoughts with a grain of salt. What I think and hope Koreans will understand is that they are going to have a much more engaged process because this is a bilateral agreement versus a multilateral one in NATO. Most important there is real war planning taking place day in and day out within the alliance. There is a real Operational Plan designed against a very real and specific threat which means there can be much deeper consultation and planning within the NCG than actually takes place in the NPG in NATO.

But the Korean side first has to learn the ins and out of nuclear targeting and decision making. That is why the tabletop exercises are so important as they will be able to work through myriad scenarios and determine what conditions require a nuclear response and what conditions only a conventional response. And there will be no automatic responses except to execute the words of the Presidents, SECDEF, and MINDEF - e.g., if Kim miscalculates and uses a WMD the regime will cease to exist - this we can be sure of. And of course what is important, a nuclear response is not just "one and done." There has to be a lot more supporting actions by conventional versus to exploit the success of a nuclear strike as well as conventional support for the actual strike itself. This takes a lot of planning and it is really an excellent step forward in the alliance to establish the NCG. 

Korea’s Yoon won American hearts, but concerns linger over nuclear umbrella

Visit hits optical highs, but skeptics unassured on U.S. commitment despite 'kill web' upgrade

washingtontimes.com · by Andrew Salmon

South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol glances toward members of the media during a meeting with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2023. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) more >

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol wowed Americans with his karaoke game during his six-day trip to the U.S., but concerns have been raised back home about the nuclear assurances that President Biden’s team provided.

The visit, which ended Sunday, marked a U-turn for Mr. Yoon, whom some consider stuffy and who made some diplomatic gaffes early in his tenure. He turned up the charm by singing the opening lines of Don McLean’s classic “American Pie” at the White House state dinner and later told Americans what they like to hear in a joint speech to Congress.

The song was clearly planned, as Mr. Biden presented Mr. Yoon with a signed McLean guitar, but the presidential double act was played as an impromptu moment. VIPs in attendance appeared astonished and delighted.

Mr. Yoon’s vocals were likely honed in sessions in Seoul karaoke saloons (noraebang, or “song rooms,” in Korean). It is part of an after-hours Korean tradition in which colleagues bond over grilled pork, copious booze and hot mics.

“When drinking, we always had to be ready to sing a song. There was a bit of peer pressure to sing on any drinking occasion, so some people practiced it as a survival skill,” said Yang Sun-mook, a former adviser on foreign affairs to the opposition Democratic Party of Korea. “If you want to be an excellent boss, you have to excel in some entertaining stuff. Either you should sing or dance great or be a stand-up comedian. It’s a gung-ho kind of style in Korea.”

With this year marking the 70th anniversary of the bilateral alliance — dating to 1953, when the Korean War armistice was signed — the feel-good vibes continued in Mr. Yoon’s address on Capitol Hill.

SEE ALSO: U.S., South Korea escalate efforts to deter North Korea from launching nuclear attacks

Mr. Yoon talked up wartime U.S. heroism and the freedom, democracy and prosperity it helped birth in South Korea.

“Whoever wrote the speech deserves a bonus: They really understand the Americans,” said Lynn Turk, a retired U.S. diplomat with wide experience with South Korea. “It hit all the notes that Americans think about Korea and what they want to believe about history and the alliance.”

Others were critical.

“I did not see a Korean identity. I saw a U.S. identity to appease a U.S. audience,” academic Moon Chung-in said of Mr. Yoon’s speech. “It was good, but he is the president of Korea.”

Substance or symbolism?

Reactions also were mixed about tangibles. Key outcomes were outlined in the Washington Declaration, which sought to ease concerns in South Korea.

SEE ALSO: South Korea President Yoon sees ‘new future’ with U.S. based on free markets, cultural exchange

“There are fears about extended deterrence and the fears about abandonment and entrapment that go with any alliance,” said Dan Pinkston, a Seoul-based international relations expert with Troy University.

A standout in the declaration is the establishment of a bilateral Nuclear Consultative Group. The declaration states: “The United States commits to make every effort to consult [with South Korea] on any possible nuclear weapons employment on the Korean Peninsula.”

The document also clarifies “joint execution and planning for [South Korean] conventional support to U.S. nuclear operations in a contingency.”

With Seoul not possessing nuclear arms, the two parties have “established a new bilateral, interagency table-top simulation to strengthen our joint approach to planning for nuclear contingencies.”

Go Myong-hyun, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, was upbeat. The declaration is “totally different” to what had been the case prior, and “NGC” is a play on NATO acronym NPG (Nuclear Planning Group), Mr. Go said.

“The mechanism had been capped at the consultation level. It was a mode of briefing and debriefing, where the U.S. side would tell the Korean side,” Mr. Go said. “NATO’s NPG has two components: One is consultative; one is about nuclear use components, which is operationalized through dual-capable aircraft.”

The NCG “is a first step toward a proper NPG,” which would be, “realistically speaking, the maximum form of nuclear sharing any ally can aspire to,” Mr. Go said. “The U.S. offered a lot more than I thought would be possible at this juncture. It all happened sooner than I expected.”

Mr. Moon, who has advised the left-leaning Seoul governments that have engaged in summitry with North Korea, was downbeat.

“The consultation is not automatic; it is situational,” he said. “It says ‘make every effort,’ which means it may not consult with South Korea.”

Moreover, “Nuclear operations will be done by the U.S. alone, and South Korea will provide conventional support,” Mr. Moon said. “It is the same as before. It is more symbolic than substantive.”

The declaration states that South Korea “has full confidence in U.S. extended deterrence commitments.”

South Korea’s bestselling newspaper, The Chosun Ilbo, was unconvinced. It argued that the declaration puts “shackles” on Seoul policy.

“The question remains whether Washington will really protect Seoul even if that places U.S. territory in the crosshairs of North Korea’s nuclear missiles,” the right-wing paper, which supports the conservative Mr. Yoon, said in an editorial. “According to a survey early this year, half of South Koreans doubt that the U.S. will exercise its nuclear deterrence capabilities in the event of an emergency.”

In January, Mr. Yoon generated shock waves when he hinted offhandedly at the prospect of Seoul acquiring nuclear arms.

That issue was finessed to U.S. satisfaction in the declaration. “President Yoon reaffirmed the ROK’s longstanding commitment to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” it reads.

“It was hasty to jettison South Korea’s right to protect its sovereignty and people at a time when North Korea is repeatedly threatening to launch a nuclear attack against it,” The Chosun fumed.

Another sign of U.S. commitment to South Korea will be the visit of ballistic-missile submarines. Such visits were halted after 1989.

Noting that the U.S. fleet possesses only 14 Ohio-class ships, Mr. Go was impressed that valuable assets are “being set aside … to defend South Korea.”

One expert warned against simplistic interpretations.

It was quietly revealed in March that Seoul is upgrading its defense matrix from a strictly kinetic “kill chain” to the more advanced U.S. concept of a “kill web,” which maximally integrates all domains.

From that viewpoint, the institutionalization of bilateral mechanisms offers real value.

“By reconstituting and standing up consultative mechanisms and normalizing discussions, people will realize that this process is not just about pushing a red button,” Mr. Pinkston said.

• Andrew Salmon can be reached at asalmon@washingtontimes.com.

washingtontimes.com · by Andrew Salmon

2. Yoon expresses thanks to Bidens for their 'truly warmest welcome'

It was a great state visit, Great optics, substantive agreements, and it should set up the alliance to move forward in numerous areas. The only drawback is the South Korean political opposition at home to the Washington Declaration. While there is some hard core opposition for mostly nationalist feelings some of the opposition could be overcome with an effective strategic communications plan to help educate the Korean people in the South to include the uninformed political elite.

I think one indicator of success is that the north Koreans and Chinese are not at all happy with it. If we upset them we must be doing something right.

Yoon expresses thanks to Bidens for their 'truly warmest welcome' | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 김한주 · May 1, 2023

SEOUL, May 1 (Yonhap) -- President Yoon Suk Yeol has thanked U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden for their "truly warmest welcome" during his state visit to Washington last week, lauding relations between the two countries as "a blood alliance."

"Don't know how to thank @POTUS and @FLOTUS enough for their truly warmest welcome," Yoon tweeted Sunday, referring to the Bidens, adding that South Korea and the United States "are a blood alliance forged by the sacrifice of our young soldiers. An alliance of freedom and justice."

In a separate Twitter post Monday morning, Yoon said first lady Kim Keon Hee "also wishes to convey her many, many thanks" to the Bidens, especially the U.S. first lady, "for preparing the most impressive state dinner."

"Hoping to return the favor with fine Korean cuisine in Seoul!" he said.

Yoon returned home Sunday from the six-day state visit designed to mark the 70th anniversary of the bilateral alliance this year. During the summit, Yoon and Biden adopted the "Washington Declaration," a joint statement committing the United States to a series of measures to better defend South Korea from North Korea's nuclear threats.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol (2nd from L), first lady Kim Keon Hee (L), U.S. President Joe Biden (2nd from R) and U.S. first lady Jill Biden pose for a photo during a state dinner at the White House in Washington on April 26, 2023. (Yonhap)

khj@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 김한주 · May 1, 2023

3. N. Korea slams allies' deterrence plan as 'legal justification' for strategic asset dispatch

The Kim family regime realizes that this summit and the Washington Declaration is an indication that the regime's political warfare and blackmail diplomacy strategies are failing. The regime has failed to weaken readiness and deterrence (in order to ultimately drive US forces from the peninsula). It has failed to drive a wedge in the alliance. The alliance is dmonreating greater unity and strength than it has in decades.

Of course this continuing failure could push Kim to conduct his 7th nuclear test so as to try to seek the upper hand.  

We should not even flinch when the test is conducted but instead use aggressive information and influence operations and continue to train to maintain a high level of combined combat readiness.

N. Korea slams allies' deterrence plan as 'legal justification' for strategic asset dispatch | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 김수연 · May 1, 2023

SEOUL, May 1 (Yonhap) -- North Korea denounced the latest summit agreement between South Korea and the United States on Monday for providing "legal justification" to the regular deployment of a U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarine and other strategic assets against Pyongyang.

In a commentary carried by the Korean Central News Agency, Choe Ju-hyon, an analyst on international security affairs, slammed Seoul and Washington for justifying the "paradox" that the planned deployment of a U.S. strategic nuclear submarine does not breach the 1991 inter-Korean denuclearization declaration and has no legal problem.

"Too obvious is the intention sought by the U.S. in encouraging its stooge to paint its reckless confrontational nuclear asset deployment as a 'legal one,'" Choe said, calling it "sophistry" touted by the U.S. as legitimacy.

This undated photo, captured from the Twitter account of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, shows a U.S. strategic submarine in Guam. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap)

President Yoon Suk Yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden held a summit in Washington last week and announced the adoption of the Washington Declaration on strengthening U.S. extended deterrence against the North's threats, which includes a U.S. plan to send a nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) to South Korea.

Seoul's defense ministry said the planned SSBM visit to the South does not violate the declaration that the two Koreas reached in December 1991, pledging not to test, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use any nuclear weapons.

Kim Yo-jong, the influential sister of the North's leader Kim Jong-un, issued the North's first response to the Yoon-Biden summit Saturday, warning Pyongyang could take "more decisive" action to deal with the change in the security environment.

North Korea's state media on Monday also carried news reports critical of the Washington Declaration from China and Russia, claiming that the international community has expressed "strong" worries about the "negative repercussion" of the summit outcome.

sooyeon@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 김수연 · May 1, 2023

4. What Is behind Insistence on "Legitimacy" of U.S. Strategic Asset Deployment: International Security Analyst

Here is the statement referenced in the Yonhap article. I wonder why it is CHoe Ju Hyun making these statements? Why not Kim Yo Jong? Are they reducing the level of official statements for a reason? Does this indicate that the regime will want to walk back the statements? Does it indicate that it may in fact recognize its strategic failures and therefore may want to return to negotiations? I defer to the north Korean experts on decision making but I would not hold my breath waiting for a return to negotiations.

​Based on the Yonhap article I expected a specific comment about the 1991 Agreement on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. But it is not specifically mentioned - only the ROK side. specifically mentioned it. It is too bad because if the regime uses the 1991 agreement we can't really see the pot calling the kettle black.​

What Is behind Insistence on "Legitimacy" of U.S. Strategic Asset Deployment: International Security Analyst

Date: 01/05/2023 | Source: KCNA.kp (En) | Read original version at source

https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1682892471-656390709/what-is-behind-insistence-on-legitimacy-of-u-s-strategic-asset-deployment-international-security-analyst

Pyongyang, May 1 (KCNA) -- Choe Ju Hyon, an international security analyst of the DPRK, released the following article on May 1:

The international community is getting vocal criticizing the "Washington Declaration" that stipulates the most hostile and aggressive action will against the DPRK.

The majority of the world public, including neighboring countries, term the declaration the "trigger for another nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula", "an act of inviting a wolf into Northeast Asia" and "a dangerous decision that will plunge the region into a further escalation of tensions and an evil cycle of arms race", warning of the significantly negative consequences to be entailed by it.

This is a fair comment of the international community on the act of the U.S. and the south Korean puppet warmongers to throw the present entire region deep into a terrible thermo-nuclear war, being not content with fomenting constant instability on the Korean Peninsula through their threatening rhetoric and greed-driven hostile military acts.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. egged on the south Korean puppet defence minister on April 28 to let out such paradox that deployment of U.S. strategic nuclear submarines does not go against the "joint declaration of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and has no legal problems.

This is just the height of impudence and shamelessness peculiar to the U.S. that is no slouch at lies and plots.

Before debating on "legitimacy", it is necessary to recall the well-known fact that the farce of deploying nuclear strategic assets orchestrated by the U.S. has been a main evil source of ever-escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

This is clearly proven by the fact that the regional situation aggravates explosively whenever nuclear-capable strategic bombers buzz around the sky above Korean Peninsula and nuclear carrier and subs make their unwanted appearances in the waters around it.

Specifically, the U.S. has deployed different nuclear strategic assets targeted at the DPRK since the outset of this year, making the military and political situation of the peninsula still drown in the quagmire of instability. Worse still, a timer is now ticking to ignite the fuse of detonating a nuclear war.

Too obvious is the intention sought by the U.S. in encouraging its stooge to paint its reckless confrontational nuclear asset deployment as "legal one", despite of the fact that it admits of neither excuse nor disguise.

It is just aimed to dodge the responsibility for the worst-ever nuclear-related crimes it has committed by systematically destroying and violating the nuclear non-proliferation system, and in particular, pushing the situation of the Korean Peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war through the establishment of aggressive and exclusive military blocs and frantic nuclear proliferation threatening human existence.

Lurking behind it is also a black-hearted design to hype the "legitimacy" of the regular deployment of its strategic nuclear submarine near the Korean Peninsula and thus invent the "legal justification" for openly bringing its huge strategic assets there in the future.

It is the hegemonic sinister aim pursued by the U.S. to turn the whole of south Korea into its biggest nuclear war outpost in the Far East and effectively use it for attaining its strategy for dominating the world.

The U.S. is sadly mistaken if it thinks that it can twist the truth with petty verbal tricks and turn black into white.

Such sophistry as "legitimacy" touted by the U.S. can never help it hide its true colors as the chief culprit of aggression against peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and the region. -0-

www.kcna.kp (Juche112.5.1.)

5. N.Korea Insults Biden, Slams Defense Agreement with Seoul

Another indicator of the success of the summit. We should hear Presidents Yoon and Biden say in unison to the regime: "Bring it on."

The regime does not want to just cement its status as a nuclear armed nation. It was much more than that, starting with sanctions relief, establishing conditions favorable to the regime to both undermine the ROK and split the ROK/US alliance, and ultimately to prepare to be able to use force to achieve its objectives: domtinattion of he penisllaunder he Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State to ensure the trivial of the mafia-like from family cult known as the Kim family regime. We must understand the nature, objectives, and strategy of he regime and develop our approaches based on that understanding.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is widely expected to up the ante in the coming weeks or months as he continues to accelerate a campaign aimed at cementing the North's status as a nuclear power and eventually negotiating U.S. economic and security concessions from a position of strength.

N.Korea Insults Biden, Slams Defense Agreement with Seoul

english.chosun.com

May 01, 2023 08:20

The powerful sister of North Korea's leader says her country would stage more provocative displays of its military might in response to a new U.S.-South Korean agreement to intensify nuclear deterrence to counter the North’s nuclear threat, which she insists shows their "extreme" hostility toward Pyongyang.

Kim Yo-jong also lobbed personal insults toward U.S. President Joe Biden, who after a summit Wednesday with South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol stated that any North Korean nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies would "result in the end of whatever regime" took such action.

Biden's meeting with Yoon in Washington came amid heightened tensions in the Korean Peninsula as the pace of both the North Korean weapons demonstrations and the combined U.S.-South Korean military exercises have increased in a cycle of tit-for-tat.

Since the start of 2022, North Korea has test-fired around 100 missiles, including multiple demonstrations of intercontinental ballistic missiles designed to reach the U.S. mainland and a slew of short-range launches the North described as simulated nuclear strikes on South Korea.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is widely expected to up the ante in the coming weeks or months as he continues to accelerate a campaign aimed at cementing the North's status as a nuclear power and eventually negotiating U.S. economic and security concessions from a position of strength.

During their summit, Biden and Yoon announced new nuclear deterrence efforts that call for periodically docking U.S. nuclear-armed submarines in South Korea for the first time in decades and bolstering training between the two countries. They also committed to plans for bilateral presidential consultations in the event of a North Korean nuclear attack, the establishment of a nuclear consultative group and improved sharing of information on nuclear and strategic weapons operation plans.

This photo provided by the North Korean government, Kim Yo-jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, delivers a speech during a national meeting against the coronavirus in Pyongyang, North Korea on Aug. 10, 2022. /AP

In her comments published on state media, Kim Yo-jong said the U.S.-South Korean agreement reflected the allies' "most hostile and aggressive will of action" against the North and will push regional peace and security into "more serious danger."

Kim Yo-jong, who is one of her brother's top foreign policy officials, said the summit further strengthened the North's conviction to enhance its nuclear arms capabilities. She said it would be especially important for the North to perfect the "second mission of the nuclear war deterrent," in an apparent reference to the country's escalatory nuclear doctrine that calls for preemptive nuclear strikes over a broad range of scenarios where it may perceive its leadership as under threat.

She lashed out at Biden over his blunt warning that North Korean nuclear aggression would result in the end of its regime, calling him senile and "too miscalculating and irresponsibly brave." However, she said the North wouldn't simply dismiss his words as a "nonsensical remark from the person in his dotage." "When we consider that this expression was personally used by the president of the U.S., our most hostile adversary, it is threatening rhetoric for which he should be prepared for far too great an after-storm," she said.

She called Yoon a "fool" over his efforts to strengthen South Korea's defense in conjunction with its alliance with the United States and bolster the South's own conventional missile capabilities, saying he was putting his absolute trust in the U.S. despite getting only "nominal" promises in return.

South Korea's Unification Ministry, which handles inter-Korean affairs, described her comments as "absurd" and insisted that they convey the North's "nervousness and frustration" over the allies' efforts to strengthen nuclear deterrence. Kim Yo-jong did not specify the actions the North is planning to take in response to the outcome of the U.S.-South Korea summit.

Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, said the North will likely dial up military exercises involving its purported nuclear-capable missiles to demonstrate preemptive strike capabilities. The North may also stage tests of submarine-launched ballistic missile systems in response to the U.S. plans to send nuclear-armed submarines to the South, he said.

Kim Jong-un said this month that the country has built its first military spy satellite, which will be launched at an unspecified date. The launch would almost certainly be seen by its rivals as a banned test of long-range missile technology.

Facing growing North Korean threats, Yoon has been seeking stronger reassurances from the United States that it would swiftly and decisively use its nuclear weapons if the South comes under a North Korean nuclear attack.

His government has also been expanding military training with the U.S., which included the allies' biggest field exercises in years last month and separate drills involving a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group and advanced warplanes, including nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and F-35 fighter jets.

• Copyright © Chosunilbo & Chosun.com

english.chosun.com

6. Yoon says US could use nukes to defend Seoul, muddying waters around summit deal

Sigh... people seem to want to deliberately under the Washington Declaration. That is really too bad because this is very important step forward for the alliance.But the Korean side has a lot to learn and they are going to school very quickly now.

Yoon says US could use nukes to defend Seoul, muddying waters around summit deal

https://www.nknews.org/2023/04/yoon-says-us-could-use-nukes-to-defend-seoul-muddying-waters-around-summit-deal/

Expert says ROK president is misrepresenting allies’ posture on North Korean attack by overemphasizing nuclear response

Jeongmin Kim April 28, 2023

SHARE

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin (right) stands with South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol prior to their meeting at the Pentagon on April 27, 2023 | Image: U.S. Department of Defense, by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Alexander Kubitza

The U.S. and South Korea will meet any North Korean use of nuclear weapons against Seoul with an “overwhelming response” that could include U.S. nuclear weapons, ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol said Thursday, appearing to misrepresent the allies’ latest summit agreement.

Yoon made the comments while visiting the Pentagon for a briefing on readiness against North Korea, a day after his second summit with U.S. counterpart Joe Biden in Washington.

“If North Korea attempts to use nuclear weapons, it will face a decisive and overwhelming response by the ROK-U.S. alliance and the ROK armed forces, including U.S. nuclear capability,” Yoon said, according to a Korean-language transcript provided by the South Korean presidential office.

But the Department of Defense’s press release on Yoon’s visit appeared to tweak and tone down his remarks, changing “including U.S. nuclear capability” to “including U.S. military capability.”

Yoon’s statement marks the second time this week that he has suggested that Washington would use nuclear weapons in response to any North Korean nuclear attack, even though the Washington Declaration released after the summit is more ambiguous on the issue.

Adam Mount, director of the Defense Posture Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), told NK News that the South Korean president is “misrepresenting a critical piece of the alliance’s deterrence posture.” 

“The U.S. would employ nuclear weapons if they are necessary to defend South Korea,” he said. “But Washington has not and will not give a general commitment to use nuclear weapons because in many cases nuclear use would do more harm than good.” 

“The worst position we could be in is to have no better option than to use a nuclear weapon,” he said.

DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

Following Wednesday’s bilateral summit, some experts noted discrepancies in how Yoon and Biden described the U.S. commitment to defend ROK, especially how America would respond to North Korean attack.

“Our two countries have agreed to immediate bilateral presidential consultations in the event of North Korea’s nuclear attack and promised to respond swiftly, overwhelmingly, and decisively using the full force of the alliance including the United States’ nuclear weapons,” Yoon said at a press conference after the summit.

Yoon’s comments suggested that the U.S. had committed to using nuclear weapons under such circumstances, but remarks by Biden and his defense secretary, as well as the text of the Washington Declaration, did not clearly indicate such a commitment.

The declaration states that Biden reassured Yoon that the “U.S. commitment to extend deterrence to the ROK is backed by the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear.” But it adds that the U.S. will “make every effort” to consult with the ROK in the event of any nuclear weapons employment on the Korean Peninsula, suggesting U.S. nuclear use is not guaranteed in all circumstances.

The commitment to using the full range of U.S. capabilities for extended deterrence echoes the language in the allies’ statement after their latest Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), as well as in Yoon and Biden’s first summit statement.

The only notable difference is that the Washington Declaration drops direct reference to conventional and missile capabilities as part of the full range of U.S. capabilities.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin used the phrasing in the SCM statement when speaking to Yoon at the Pentagon on Thursday.

“I want to underscore … that the U.S. commitment to the defense of the ROK is ironclad,” he said. “And so is our extended deterrence commitment to your country, which includes a full range of U.S. defense capabilities, including conventional, nuclear and missile defense capabilities.”

Mount of FAS raised concerns that President Yoon appears fixated on nuclear weapons, despite new measures and mechanisms such as the Nuclear Consultative Group that appeared calibrated toward cooling enthusiasm for nuclear armament in Seoul. 

“Nuclear assurance causes the problem they are trying to solve,” Mount said. “Nuclear weapons are corrosive to the alliance. U.S. policy tries to reduce proliferation risks by raising the profile of nuclear weapons — but in practice, this only fuels demand for nuclear weapons in Seoul.”

Mount said that the 70-year-old alliance had a “real opportunity” this week to shift their emphasis to conventional rather than nuclear forces, referring to the former as “the core” of the U.S. extended deterrence for allies.

“But Yoon has to want to be assured and has to abandon the fallacy that only a nuke can deter a nuke,” he said.

Edited by Bryan Betts

7. Moscow: ‘Seoul-Washington nuke agreement could spark arms

We are on a roll. Russia is unhappy with the summit as well.

I think the opposite is probably true - we may have stopped an arms race due to the ROK not going nuclear.

Moscow: ‘Seoul-Washington nuke agreement could spark arms

donga.com

Posted May. 01, 2023 07:51,

Updated May. 01, 2023 07:51

Moscow: ‘Seoul-Washington nuke agreement could spark arms. May. 01, 2023 07:51. chaewani@donga.com.

As South Korea and the U.S. made a ‘Washington Declaration’ including the strengthening of U.S.’ nuclear deterrence (nuclear umbrella)’ for South Korea, Russia warned that it could spark an arms race.

“The U.S.–South Korea nuclear agreement further destabilizes regional and international order. Such an agreement could spark an arms race,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement issued on Friday. “We urge the U.S. and its allies, which are pursuing multiple military programs hampering the world’s strategic balance, to halt acts escalating tension and give up measures destabilizing global security.”

The South Korea-U.S. ‘nuclear agreement’ refers to the Washington Declaration that was adopted during the Seoul-Washington summit on Wednesday last week. The agreement calls for, among others, the establishment of a Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) that guarantees the expansion of South Korea’s engagement in the process of the U.S.’ provision of nuclear umbrella in the event of a situation including Pyongyang’s nuclear threat.

Even before the Seoul-Washington summit, Moscow expressed objection to President Yoon Suk Yeol’s remarks suggesting Seoul’s intention to provide weapons to Ukraine. Moscow had said, “Provision of weapons constitutes an intervention in the war.” Seoul and Washington stopped short of clarifying Seoul’s provision of weapons right after their summit, but many pundits say the proposal is an ongoing issue.

Regarding this development, Ukraine’s ambassador to South Korea uploaded on Saturday a photo of apartment buildings destroyed by Russia’s missile strikes on Twitter. “This is the situation in Ukraine tonight,” the ambassador said. “This is a clear example of massive strikes on civilians.” He apparently revisited President Yoon’s statement that suggested South Korea’s possible provision of weapons to Ukraine conditional upon situations such as a massacre of civilians.

한국어

donga.com

8. South Korea’s Yoon Demonstrates Firm Pro-West Stance in DC Visit

Pro west? or pro shared values? I would empshzie the values of like indeed democracies. 

POLITICS

South Korea’s Yoon Demonstrates Firm Pro-West Stance in DC Visit

Nuclear subs in Korean waters for the first time in 4 decades

https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/yoon-suk-yeol-pro-west-stance-us-visit?publication_id=23934&post_id=118462385&isFreemail=false

APR 30, 2023

∙ PAID

Share

By: Shim Jae Hoon

Biden-Yoon karaoke: singing on the same page

In active diplomacy that is helping to pave the way for a new trilateral alliance with the US that checkmates the rise of China in the Pacific region and counters North Korea’s nuclear threats, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s agreement to a significant strategic deal responding to North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats means US nuclear-armed missile submarines can be deployed to South Korean waters for the first time in four decades.

The pact, called the Washington Declaration, is also a further indication of the Yoon government’s process of breaking free from the previous government’s pro-Beijing stance and the restoration of Seoul’s pro-Western policy based on free market and democratic institutions. That basic orientation accounts for Seoul’s recent stance on Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific theater.

President Joe Biden said during Yoon’s visit to Washington last week that he wouldn’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons in the event North Korea launched a nuclear attack on the South. In exchange, Seoul pledges not to seek its own nuclear capability. 

“North Korea will be met with a swift, overwhelming and decisive response that will end whatever regime that were to take such an action,” Biden warned in the agreement, which the two sides signed at the conclusion of their talks. In another context during their talks, Biden declared that North Korea’s nuclear attacks on what he called “partners,” probably meaning an attack on Japan could also meet with massive retaliation.

It was the first such unambiguous warning contained in an official document, which was signed and published at the end of the bilateral talks. In it, President Yoon for the first time pledged Seoul’s commitment to stay within the obligations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, meaning he will not pursue a nuclear option even in the face of considerable nuclear threats from the North. The Pyongyang regime today is assumed to possess at least two dozen atomic and hydrogen class bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching North American cities. Kim Jong Un has declared he will not hesitate to use these nuclear weapons against the South.

In Seoul, this deal has come under heavy attack from the parliamentary opposition as well as from conservative supporters of President Yoon. They criticize Yoon for “giving up too much in return for too little.” At the center of long and often fiery debates, scientists and politicians have argued that leaving the nuclear choice to Seoul’s enemy and uncertain allies could result in catastrophe. They worry that the US, in the face of North Korean nuclear weapons capable of reaching US cities, could collapse under nuclear blackmail with the result of abandoning its allies.

Reactions from North Korea to Washington’s news remained unsurprising. Calling Biden “a person in dotage” meaning a leader incapable of making right decisions, Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of leader Kim Jong Un, said the US policy would result in “making the peace and security of Northeast Asia and the world exposed to more serious danger.” That was a mild statement given her past vituperations.

But President Yoon, known for his pragmatic, conservative stance, has accepted the deal that has eased the worries of many of his aides. In the Washington declaration, the two presidents announced the establishment of a new Nuclear Consultative Group in which the two sides would discuss nuclear and strategic planning on nuclear deployment. The US, however, retains exclusive authority on when or how nuclear weapons would be used in time of emergency. This was the price Yoon accepted for deployment of US nuclear submarine.

Yoon and Biden also took up global issues including the Ukraine war and China’s increasing assertiveness on Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific theater. In a separate Joint Statement issued at the conclusion of the talks, Yoon, to the surprise of many political watchers at home, clearly condemned Russia “in the strongest possible terms” for its aggression in Ukraine. On the surface, Yoon has been reluctant to send weapons and ammunitions to Ukraine under its policy of not sending lethal weapons to countries at war, but in truth hoping not to allow Moscow to retaliate against South Korean economic interests. But Yoon has slowly bent to allowing sending arms to Poland, Ukraine’s border neighbor. But it was also a countermove as North Korea was secretly sending arms to Russia to attack Ukrainians. Yoon’s new foreign policy is to align clearly with the West in opposition to the previous leftwing, nationalist regime that endorsed pro-China policy.

Yoon has inevitably clashed with China over Taiwan as Seoul’s new Indo-Pacific doctrine opposing China’s aggressive claims has provoked an angry response from Beijing. China has protested Seoul’s endorsement of Washington’s position on Taiwan as breaching China’s “internal matters.” Seoul, however, refused to back down, saying Beijing’s “undiplomatic language” was unacceptable. Departing from past practices of meekly accepting Beijing’s complaints, Seoul this time asked the Chinese ambassador to show up at the foreign ministry to be subjected to a tongue lashing.

Seoul’s own assertive foreign policy comes on the back of its recent rapprochement with Japan over the history question that has long troubled relations with Tokyo. President Yoon has taken the initiative of settling the compensation claims demanded by Korean forced laborers in wartime Japan. Yoon accepted the position that the 1965 diplomatic normalization treaty has settled all claims against Japan.

Japan is relieved by Seoul’s recent constructive role in the regional defense. Japanese Prime Minister Kishida is expected to visit to Seoul in May to affirm this new East Asian entente.

9. Party's over (ROK and the Summit)

The Koreans are really misunderstanding Edgard Kagan's remarks. They do not undercut anything in the Washington Declaration. The problem is the ROK side elites, press, and public do not YET have a good understanding of the declaration and of the nuclear consultation process. Step one for the nuclear Consultative Group is to develop an effective strategic communications plan and start executing it.

Party's over

The Korea Times · April 30, 2023

Time to settle the bill and pick up the pieces

President Yoon Suk Yeol's six-day visit to the United States last week reaffirmed how different diplomacy can be on the inside and on the outside.

After the summit with President Joe Biden, the South Korean leader sang "American Pie" in a carefully staged state banquet. During his 43-minute speech at the U.S. Congress' joint session, Yoon mentioned the word "freedom" 46 times, drawing 23 rounds of applause.

Now it's time to review what Yoon, or Seoul, gained and lost.

As always, there are two principal points ― national security and the economy. In conclusion, South Korea earned a more extensive and closely knit U.S. nuclear umbrella, if in form only, and got little ― if any ― in the economy.

The Washington Declaration contains the U.S. pledge to retaliate against nuclear attacks from North Korea in kind, even if the latter hit the U.S. mainland with long-range missiles at the same time. Its concrete implementing tool, the Nuclear Consultation Group, will reflect Seoul's opinions on America's possible use of atomic weapons.

But there is nothing else. The presidential office and the ruling party hastily ― and presumptuously ― identified these accords with "nuclear sharing." However, even before Yoon left Washington, ranking U.S. officials made clear that is not the case. "So let me be very direct. I don't think that we see this as a de facto nuclear sharing," said Edgard Kagan, senior director for East Asia and Oceania of the National Security Council.

Instead, Washington put to rest Seoul's ambitions to develop its own nuclear weapons or bring back U.S. atomic bombs to the peninsula permanently. Except for a written pledge, one could hardly see any substantive changes in the U.S.' nuclear policy on South Korea before and after Yoon's visit. Nothing shows this better than the coarse but subdued response from Pyongyang, by its standards. Kim Yo-jong, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's sister, called Biden "a futureless old man" and Yoon "an ugly guy."

Besides countering a hypothetical North Korean nuclear attack on the South, Yoon made a more serious commitment in a global context. By moving excessively closer to America, he turned China and Russia into de facto adversaries. Moscow showed a willingness to give arms to Pyongyang if Seoul provides lethal weapons to Kyiv. Beijing was more direct, warning against "playing with fire" by intervening in the China-Taiwan relationship. If the war in Ukraine escalates and armed conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, Seoul cannot avoid involvement.

That will lead to enormous adverse effects Yoon's U.S. visit will have on this country's economy. Contrary to expectations that closer ties with Washington will help ease Korean computer chip and electric vehicle makers' concerns about doing business with China, Yoon failed to induce any reassuring remarks from Biden.

The South Korean leader should have seen the true concerns behind the smiling faces of the chaebol tycoons in his entourage and won more than a pledge to "continue the discussion." A U.S. journalist had to ask a thorny question about the matter on behalf of her excessively polite Korean colleagues and a bewildered Biden obfuscated.

Yoon calls himself "Sales Representative No. 1 of the Republic of Korea." However, the businesses must add the "presidential risk" to their list of corporate uncertainties. Yoon boasted U.S. companies would invest $5.2 billion in Korea, but Biden said Korean firms are to pour $75 billion into America. The business community's concerns will become a reality when the two estranged powers retaliate in business arenas.

Once again, Yoon gave almost everything and came back nearly empty-handed.

What Seoul expects to get from Washington and Tokyo in return will be hard to compare to what it loses from Beijing and Moscow. South Korea should not, and cannot, be the 51st U.S. state. It must be a balance of power in Asia and the world, however imperfect it may be.

The "global freedom crusader" and his administration are going in the diametrically opposite direction.

The Korea Times · April 30, 2023

10. Official says no plans for now to form three-way nuke deterrence consultative body with U.S., Japan

No plans "now." No "concrete" discussions were held. The trial balloon is out there.  That does not mean discussions were not held. I am sure it is a bridge too far for the Koreans politically right now, but this is the way forward. And hopefully this trial balloon is a wakeup call to north Korea and China. north Korea's actions are driving this forward.

Official says no plans for now to form three-way nuke deterrence consultative body with U.S., Japan | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 이원주 · May 1, 2023

SEOUL, May 1 (Yonhap) -- A senior official at South Korea's foreign ministry said Monday that Seoul has no plans for now to create a trilateral consultative group on extended deterrence with Washington and Tokyo.

The official made the remarks amid media speculation that South Korea, the United States and Japan may establish a three-way nuclear consultative body, after President Yoon Suk Yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden agreed to create a bilateral Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) to strengthen extended deterrence against North Korea's threats.

"No concrete discussions were held yet on (establishing) a multilateral consultative body involving other countries like Japan," the official said.

The official cautioned against reading too much into the media speculation, saying, "There are no plans or schedules at the moment" for the three nations to form a trilateral consultative group on extended deterrence.

Yoon is widely expected to hold a three-way summit with Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on the sidelines of a Group of Seven (G7) summit meeting in Japan later this month.

"We will first focus on creating the bilateral consultative group between South Korea and the U.S. and strengthening bilateral consultations," the official added.

This combined photo taken Nov. 13, 2022, shows South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol (L), U.S. President Joe Biden (C) and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida posing for a photo during their summit at a hotel in Phnom Penh. (Yonhap)

julesyi@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 이원주 · May 1, 2023

11. Alliance with U.S. dramatically upgraded to 'nuclear deterrence alliance': national security adviser

Excerpts:

Under the deal, the allies agreed to establish the Nuclear Consultative Group to ensure South Korea's say in the U.S. use of nuclear weapons and to deploy U.S. strategic assets, such as nuclear-armed submarines, to the Korean Peninsula more often to deter the North.

"If bombers, warships and submarines are all put together, we will be working in a situation effectively similar to the constant deployment of strategic assets," Cho said. "The goal is to maintain the readiness to deploy strategic assets so as to surely punish North Korea if it plays with fire at any time during the 365 days of the year."

In particular, Cho said, the upcoming visit by a nuclear ballistic missile submarine to South Korea is something unseen in nearly 40 years and means the U.S. will send all the strategic assets it can to ensure South Korea does not come under a North Korean nuclear attack.

"The South Korea-U.S. alliance was dramatically upgraded from an alliance based on conventional military power to a nuclear deterrence alliance," he said.

Cho also highlighted Biden's warning that the North's regime would end if it uses nuclear weapons.

Alliance with U.S. dramatically upgraded to 'nuclear deterrence alliance': national security adviser | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 김한주 · May 1, 2023

SEOUL, May 1 (Yonhap) -- National Security Adviser Cho Tae-yong said Monday that the alliance between South Korea and the United States has been significantly upgraded through a newly-adopted nuclear deterrence agreement.

Cho made the remark in an interview with YTN TV, referring to the Washington Declaration that President Yoon Suk Yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden adopted during a summit last week to bolster the U.S. "extended deterrence" commitment to defend South Korea by using all of its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons.

Under the deal, the allies agreed to establish the Nuclear Consultative Group to ensure South Korea's say in the U.S. use of nuclear weapons and to deploy U.S. strategic assets, such as nuclear-armed submarines, to the Korean Peninsula more often to deter the North.

"If bombers, warships and submarines are all put together, we will be working in a situation effectively similar to the constant deployment of strategic assets," Cho said. "The goal is to maintain the readiness to deploy strategic assets so as to surely punish North Korea if it plays with fire at any time during the 365 days of the year."

In particular, Cho said, the upcoming visit by a nuclear ballistic missile submarine to South Korea is something unseen in nearly 40 years and means the U.S. will send all the strategic assets it can to ensure South Korea does not come under a North Korean nuclear attack.

"The South Korea-U.S. alliance was dramatically upgraded from an alliance based on conventional military power to a nuclear deterrence alliance," he said.

Cho also highlighted Biden's warning that the North's regime would end if it uses nuclear weapons.

"What is important is that the U.S. president spoke words that if North Korea attacks South Korea with nuclear weapons, it would mean the end of the North Korean regime. It was the first time (for the U.S. president to say such things)," he said.

On the issue of Yoon's suggestion of the possibility of South Korea shifting its policy of providing only non-lethal aid to Ukraine, Cho said Yoon's point was that South Korea can take various things into account depending on developments in the Ukraine war or if large-scale humanitarian problems arise.

Cho also said he believes it was a "diplomatic gaffe" for China to denounce Yoon's expression of opposition to changing the status quo across the Taiwan Strait by force as verbal meddling, saying Yoon only talked about a principle in international law.

khj@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 김한주 · May 1, 2023

12.  Korea rising as a defense supplier amid global tensions

This is one major area where South Korea is stepping up as a global pivotal state - as a partner in the arsenal of democracy.

Monday

May 1, 2023

 dictionary + A - A 

Korea rising as a defense supplier amid global tensions

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/05/01/national/defense/Korea-weapons-KDefense/20230501155823374.html

The Korean 4.5-generation fighter jet KF-21 makes its first maiden flight in Sacheon, South Gyeongsang, in July 2022. [DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION]

U.S. allies and security partners worldwide looking to re-stock their arsenals are increasingly turning to Korean defense companies to procure weapons.

Korea signed defense export contracts worth a cumulative $17 billion in 2022, representing a 242 percent increase in a single year and making the country the eighth-largest weapons exporter in the world.

The growth in Korean defense exports, which made up 2.8 percent of a global arms exports market dominated by the United States, Russia, France and China, is all the more remarkable given the late start of the Korean weapons industry compared to the big players.

Rising Korean defense exports also more broadly signal the country’s growing capacity and will to supply arms to other U.S. allies in the face of rising military threats posed by Russia and China in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region.

Korea’s potential as a source of advanced military hardware at a time when countries are still ramping up defense production became apparent in December 2021, when Australia inked a $730-million contract with Hanwha Defense for 30 K-9 self-propelled artillery howitzers and 15 armored ammunition resupply vehicles, and again in July, when Poland announced that it had signed contracts worth an estimated $14 billion for K-2 battle tanks, K-9 howitzers and FA-50 light attack aircraft from Korea.

Rise from humble beginnings

The Korean defense industry has come a long way since October 1971, when then-President Park Chung Hee set up the Agency for Defense Development to execute the country’s “self-sufficient defense” doctrine for weapons procurement.

Cheongung medium-range surface-to-air (M-SAM) guided missile system, developed by the Agency for Defense Development and manufactured by LIG-Nex1 [DEFENSE MEDIA AGENCY]

Accordingly, Korean weapons were initially “not designed with exports in mind,” but rather “specifically created in response to [Korea’s] national needs to be able to conduct high-intensity operations against a designated adversary on a disputed border,” according to a report by Kevin Martin, a researcher at the Paris-based Institute for Strategic Studies.

But even as Seoul sought to advance its ability to fulfill its own security needs, its defense industry continued to build weapons and equipment that were interoperable with U.S. gear, since the two countries would be expected to fight side-by-side in any conflict with North Korea or China — a feature that now makes Korean weapons appealing to other U.S. allies and partners who have traditionally relied on U.S. weapons supplies.

The compatibility of Korean defense products with U.S. weapons systems was not only a deliberate choice, but also a consequence of technology transfers that built the country’s military industrial complex.

“The rise of our defense industry relied heavily on technological know-how imparted by the United States and other advanced countries,” according to a defense expert who asked not to be named in this article.

“This in turn led to natural interoperability between Korean and U.S. systems, which was reinforced when Korea also leaned on U.S. technological transfers to produce more advanced defense products domestically, such as the KF-16 fighter and the T-50 training aircraft.”

FA-50 light combat aircraft [KOREA AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES]

Unlike car manufacturing, which is near-continuous and adjusted according to consumer demand, the production of big military items such as tanks only happens once a procurement order has been placed.

As Korea’s arms production capacity exceeded domestic demand, Seoul began to seek overseas buyers for its weapons to sustain defense production.

Following the establishment of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration under the Roh Moo-hyun administration to promote and facilitate Korean defense exports, the domestic defense industry has featured prominently in Seoul’s sales diplomacy, with past presidents Park Geun-hye and Moon Jae-in timing weapons deals announcements to coincide with their visits to purchasing countries.

President Yoon has continued the trend by mentioning the 1988 South Korea-U.S. Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement during U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to South Korea in May last year in an effort to help South Korean firms enter the U.S. defense market, which in 2021 totaled $801 billion, of which South Korean weapons accounted for only $95 million.

Advantages of K-Defense

Besides fulfilling the criterion of interoperability with U.S. weapons, purchasing Korean weapons offer several advantages to potential buyers — namely cost-effectiveness, short delivery times, production and technology transfers and low political cost.

“Korean defense products designed for conventional terrestrial warfare do not differ significantly in their capabilities compared to U.S., British, French or German products, even as they are quite a bit cheaper,” said Bang Jong-goan, a research fellow at the Korean Institute for Defense Analysis.

For instance, although Poland initially asked Germany for more Leopard 2 battle tanks after it donated more than 300 Soviet-era T-72M and Polish-built PT-91 tanks to Ukraine, it eventually turned to Korea after Korea offered 980 K-2 tanks within five years, compared to the promise of one Leopard 2A7 per month from Germany, according to Edward Kim, an expert on South Korea’s defense industry, in an interview with Breaking Defense.

But while the K-2 compared favorably to the latest Leopard 2A7 during cold-weather Norwegian Army trials in January 2022, one Leopard 2A7 tank costs approximately $15.3 million, while one K-2 tank costs only roughly $8.5 million, according to publicly available pricing estimates.

Further, whereas Korea defense companies have largely kept up production to fulfill Seoul’s own defense requirements in its frozen conflict with Pyongyang, European leaders are mired in disagreement with the continent’s weapons makers over whether industry should move first or receive long-term procurement orders before they step up production.

To sweeten any potential deals for defense customers, Korean companies also typically partner with defense companies in purchasing countries to set up manufacturing facilities and transfer technology, which would not only reduce their dependence on Korea’s own production capabilities for future deliveries, but also enhance their own defense industries.

The Korean Army conducts a live-fire drill with K-2 tanks in Pocheon, Gyeonggi on Sept. 20, 2022. [REPUBLIC OF KOREA ARMY]

For example, under the terms of the contracts between Hyundai Rotem and the Polish Defense Ministry, the first 180 K2 tanks were delivered to Poland in early December, but the remaining 800 tanks will be at least partially manufactured in Poland.

During his visit to Seoul in March, Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said Warsaw is “counting very much on the transfer of technology and reproduction of similar weapons” in an interview with Yonhap in March.

The arrangement mirrors the deal between Korea and Australia for the localized production of the K-9 howitzer in Geelong, Victoria, which was signed between Canberra and Hanwha Defense in December last year, as well as Turkey’s $200-million deal with Hyundai Rotem in May last year for the Korean company to provide engine transmissions for the country’s Altay battle tank, which is already based on the K-2 with design assistance and technology transfers from Hyundai Rotem.

“For a country that wants to build up its defense production base, Korea is a very appropriate partner,” Bang said, referring to the mutually beneficial nature of the recent contracts between Warsaw and Korean defense companies.

“These deals help countries that want to build up their industrial capacity with an eye to meet their future defense needs,” Bang said.

Future direction of the Korean defense industry

Worldwide spending on defense is only set to rise amid current global tensions, with data from Aviation Week Network last year showing that global spending on arms procurement will total $680 billion in 2023, up from $550 billion in 2022.

According to Janes, some of the biggest increases is expected to come from NATO member states, such as France, Britain, Poland, Norway and Canada, which are all expected to raise their weapons spending by over 30 percent.

Amid this expected growth, President Yoon Suk Yeol said in November last year that Korea aims for a 5-percent share of the global arms export market by 2027 to become the world's fourth-largest defense exporter.

A nearly completed prototype of the KF-21 multirole fighter is displayed during a media open day at Korea Aerospace Industries' production facility in Sacheon, Gyeonggi, on Feb. 24, 2021. [YONHAP]

Pending tenders by Korean defense companies include Hanwha Defense’s Redback infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), which is currently hoping to be selected by the Australian Department of Defense’s Land 400 Phase 3 project, worth $18-21 billion and aimed at acquiring 400 next-generation IFVs to replace the country’s M113 armored personnel carriers.

Hanwha Defense is also part of a consortium with Oshkosh Defense to design a U.S. Army optionally manned fighting vehicle (OMFV) to replace around 3,500 M2 Bradley vehicles in a project worth approximately $47 billion, with the Oshkosh-Hanwha design for an OMFV expected to be based on the chassis of the Redback.

But Korea is unlikely to be the only rising defense supplier in the global weapons market.

According to Bang, both Japan and Turkey are focused on bolstering their domestic weapons industries in response to the changing global security environment.

“In some ways, we already see these two countries gearing up to become serious weapons producers, with Turkey currently supplying drones to Ukraine, while Japan launched its Acquisition, Technology and Logistic Agency to further its military technological innovation and to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter,” he noted.

For Korea to continue growing as a major player in the global weapons market, the country would have to shift its budget allocation from systems development to technological research, he added.

“The current proportion of Korea’s defense budget dedicated to research and development is around 7 percent, but we need to increase that to at least 10 percent so we can develop or indigenize key technologies,” Bang said, noting that 15 percent of the U.S. defense budget is dedicated to R&D.

Bang also said that Korea’s defense industry would need to diversify to reduce its reliance on a few big industry players.

“If you look at the example of Israel, they have a robust defense industry that is made up of strong, medium-sized companies,” he said, adding that Korea’s defense industry would be better served if it, too, had smaller players that strongly specialized in components that would strengthen military supply chains. 

BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]

​13. Deterrence, reassurance, and can kicking: The Washington Declaration

All criticism and no substantive or credible recommendations. Arms control? Before someone recommends arms control they should be required to explain the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime and if those three things are compatible with arms control negotiations.

I do agree with some of Mr. Glomez' comments. The Washington Declaration (WD for a new acronym?) does treat the symptoms and not the disease. The disease is the existence of the Kim family regime.

Excerpts:

The Washington Declaration treats a symptom but not the underlying disease. Without constraints on North Korea’s nuclear program, Kim Jong-un will continue to expand his arsenal, which, in turn, will undermine credibility in U.S. extended deterrence commitments and prompt South Korea to seek more reassurances. Staying stuck on the treadmill of constant reassurances would be familiar to the U.S., but it is not a good use of U.S. power over the long term.

Instead of trying to fill the bottomless pit of reassuring South Korea, the U.S. should back down from its unrealistic expectation of denuclearizing North Korea and instead attempt to restrain Kim’s nuclear arsenal via arms control. This would be a difficult process, to be sure, but without a course correction the Washington Declaration will only kick the can of reassurance down the road until the next crisis of confidence in U.S. extended deterrence commitments.

Deterrence, reassurance, and can kicking: The Washington Declaration

BY ERIC GOMEZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 04/30/23 7:00 PM ET

The Hill · by Sharon Udasin · April 30, 2023

On April 26, the United States and South Korea marked the 70th anniversary of their alliance by announcing the Washington Declaration, which opens a new chapter in the alliance’s approach to extended deterrence. South Korea expressed its “full confidence” in U.S. commitments and reaffirmed that it will not pursue its own nuclear weapons in exchange for greater high-level participation in U.S. nuclear planning to respond to North Korea.

The Washington Declaration never mentions the word “reassurance,” but the policies it sets forth are much better understood as reassurance measures rather than deterrence measures. Moreover, the new declaration will do nothing to resolve the underlying forces that prompted its creation in the first place.

The phrase “extended deterrence” describes the U.S. using its nuclear arsenal to prevent attacks against its allies. Extended deterrence has an important nonproliferation component as well, as the protection offered by U.S. nuclear weapons is supposed to dissuade allies from acquiring their own nuclear weapons. On the modern-day Korean peninsula, U.S. extended deterrence is primarily geared toward preventing a North Korean attack, nuclear or conventional, against South Korea.

A perennial challenge to U.S. extended deterrence commitments is the credibility problem. When the U.S. extends its nuclear umbrella it is making a promise to use its nuclear weapons to protect territory that is not its own.

That is a very bold claim to make, especially when the threatening country—in this case North Korea—can threaten U.S. territory with nuclear attack. Allies understandably fear that if push came to shove, the U.S. may not make good on its promises since its territory is not at stake. Reassuring allies that the U.S. will live up to its commitments is thus an important part of extended deterrence, and arguably more difficult than deterring the adversary.

The dynamics on the Korean peninsula leading up to the Washington Declaration illustrate how reassurance is difficult even if deterrence is easy. Preventing a North Korean attack against South Korea should be straightforward. The U.S. and South Korea field large and very capable militaries, and the U.S. has a massive advantage over North Korea in nuclear forces. Pyongyang knows that it is in a much weaker position, that it cannot hope to survive against a concerted effort to destroy it, and it has leaned heavily into a nuclear strategy that emphasizes going first and going quickly if it detected an imminent attack.

In January 2021, North Korea held a major meeting of the ruling Workers’ Party in which Kim Jong-un set forth a plan to add new types of capabilities to the country’s nuclear arsenal. The next year saw a worsening spiral of tension on the peninsula. North Korea started testing more missiles, Seoul and Washington restarted large-scale military exercises that were previously halted to incentivize diplomacy, and Pyongyang responded with even more missile activity. In January 2023, South Korea’s president Yoon Suk-yeol said continued North Korean provocations could prompt Seoul to acquire nuclear weapons or push the U.S. to strengthen its extended deterrence commitment.

The Washington Declaration is an attempt to satiate South Korea’s desire for stronger reassurances from the U.S. and put recent calls for a South Korean nuclear weapon to rest. It will probably work, but the question is for how long.

The declaration mentions displays of U.S. “strategic assets” such as an upcoming port visit of a ballistic missile submarine to South Korea. These displays are likely to prompt a strong North Korean reaction based on the North’s recent behavior of reacting to joint U.S.-South Korea military drills with their own missile exercises. The consultative procedures established in the Washington Declaration might prevent a tit-for-tat escalation in tensions that forces Seoul to seek even more reassurances, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

The Washington Declaration treats a symptom but not the underlying disease. Without constraints on North Korea’s nuclear program, Kim Jong-un will continue to expand his arsenal, which, in turn, will undermine credibility in U.S. extended deterrence commitments and prompt South Korea to seek more reassurances. Staying stuck on the treadmill of constant reassurances would be familiar to the U.S., but it is not a good use of U.S. power over the long term.

Instead of trying to fill the bottomless pit of reassuring South Korea, the U.S. should back down from its unrealistic expectation of denuclearizing North Korea and instead attempt to restrain Kim’s nuclear arsenal via arms control. This would be a difficult process, to be sure, but without a course correction the Washington Declaration will only kick the can of reassurance down the road until the next crisis of confidence in U.S. extended deterrence commitments.

Eric Gomez is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The Hill · by Sharon Udasin · April 30, 2023

​

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com