Why Missile Defense for South Korea?

The U.S. THAAD system is not foolproof, but it’s a powerful symbol of support for America’s nervous ally.

A submarine missile is paraded across Kim Il Sung Square during a military parade in Pyongyang, North Korea on April 15.
AP Photo/Wong Maye-E
Adam Wollner
Add to Briefcase
Adam Wollner
April 20, 2017, 8 p.m.

Amid rising ten­sions with North Korea, the United States and South Korea agreed this week to move up the timeline to in­stall a con­tro­ver­sial mis­sile-de­fense sys­tem in Seongju. Just how ef­fect­ive that sys­tem will be, however, re­mains in ques­tion.

The U.S. and South Korea hope the Ter­min­al High Alti­tude Area De­fense (THAAD) sys­tem will at the least de­ter Kim Jong-un, who has con­duc­ted a series of mis­sile tests over the last few months, from con­tinu­ing the tests. At best, they hope that THAAD will in­ter­cept all or most me­di­um- or in­ter­me­di­ate-range bal­list­ic mis­siles fired to­wards South Korea. But giv­en THAAD’s lim­ited track re­cord, some mis­sile-de­fense ex­perts are skep­tic­al it will be re­li­able.

“This is one of those areas where the pro­ponents of mis­sile de­fense are 100 per­cent cer­tain that it will work all the time and op­pon­ents are 100 per­cent cer­tain it will nev­er work,” said Gary Sam­ore, who served as the Obama White House’s co­ordin­at­or for arms con­trol and weapons of mass de­struc­tion. “Nobody knows how ef­fect­ive THAAD will be be­cause it hasn’t been ac­tu­ally tested un­der war­time con­di­tions that it would face.”

After fail­ing sev­er­al tests in the 1990s fol­low­ing its launch, THAAD has com­pleted 13 suc­cess­ful mis­sile in­ter­cepts in 13 at­tempts since 2006, ac­cord­ing to the U.S. Mis­sile De­fense Agency.

While that’s still an im­press­ive re­cord com­pared to oth­er sys­tems, these tests don’t al­ways tell the full story. They are of­ten con­duc­ted in re­l­at­ively fa­vor­able con­di­tions, and usu­ally in­volve knock­ing down only one or two mis­siles at a time. In fact, THAAD has yet to be tested against more than two bal­list­ic mis­siles, so it’s un­clear how it would hold up if North Korea tried to over­whelm the sys­tem.

“These tests are scrip­ted for suc­cess. They’re not try­ing to cap­ture all the un­cer­tain­ties of ac­tu­al battle,” said Philip Coyle, who was an as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary of De­fense dur­ing the Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion. “I would be con­cerned that in ac­tu­al com­bat there would be prob­lems that had not yet been cap­tured with THAAD.”

On top of that, the one THAAD bat­tery be­ing in­stalled in South Korea can provide only so much cov­er (THAAD mis­siles have a range of 125 miles and an alti­tude of 93 miles). Based on sim­u­la­tion data, the South Korean news­pa­per Chosun Ilbo re­por­ted in 2015 that while a single THAAD bat­tery could de­fend most of the coun­try from a lim­ited amount of me­di­um-range bal­list­ic mis­siles, it would take three to pro­tect the en­tire coun­try from a full North Korean bar­rage. And THAAD won’t help pro­tect Seoul from an­oth­er ma­jor se­cur­ity threat: short-range ar­til­lery and rock­ets.

Thomas Karako, the dir­ect­or of the Mis­sile De­fense Pro­ject at the Cen­ter for Stra­tegic and In­ter­na­tion­al Stud­ies, em­phas­ized that the de­ploy­ment of THAAD is a “ne­ces­sary, but not suf­fi­cient” com­pon­ent of the lar­ger plan to de­fend against North Korean at­tacks. THAAD will work in con­junc­tion with the Pat­ri­ot and Ae­gis de­fense sys­tems, which de­fend against short­er-range and longer-range mis­siles, re­spect­ively.

“I’ve yet to meet the weapons sys­tem that can handle everything,” Karako ad­ded. “It’s not about an im­pen­et­rable shield. It’s about in­tro­du­cing doubt in­to the cal­cu­lus of North Korea and oth­ers that they may not suc­ceed in es­cal­at­ing a con­flict in cer­tain ways.”

In­stalling this THAAD bat­tery, which is pro­jec­ted to cost more than $1 bil­lion, has taken sig­ni­fic­ant time and ef­fort. While the U.S. and South Korea first agreed to de­ploy the in­ter­cept­or in Ju­ly of 2016, the pro­cess didn’t be­gin of­fi­cially be­gin un­til March of this year. Vice Pres­id­ent Mike Pence and act­ing South Korean Pres­id­ent Hwang Kyo-ahn an­nounced Monday that they would ac­cel­er­ate de­ploy­ment fol­low­ing North Korea’s failed mis­sile test Sunday.

While THAAD’s de­ploy­ment has re­ceived mixed re­views in South Korea, China has been vehe­mently op­posed to it from the start. Chinese of­fi­cials are con­cerned THAAD’s radar could also be used to de­tect mis­siles in their coun­try, not just North Korea, which they be­lieve could jeop­ard­ize their na­tion­al se­cur­ity. China has re­cently re­tali­ated by im­pos­ing un­of­fi­cial eco­nom­ic sanc­tions against South Korea.

James Win­nefeld, a re­tired U.S. Navy ad­mir­al and former vice chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he is con­fid­ent THAAD will be an ef­fect­ive sys­tem not only op­er­a­tion­ally, but sym­bol­ic­ally.

“It un­der­scores our com­mit­ment to South Korea, which sends a sig­nal to the North: We’re still in­ves­ted in this place, we have an al­li­ance with them, and we will ful­fill our ob­lig­a­tions un­der the al­li­ance,” Win­nefeld said.

This is all oc­cur­ring against the back­drop of the next South Korean elec­tion, which takes place May 9. The elec­tion was called after the im­peach­ment of Pres­id­ent Park Geun-hye, who first ne­go­ti­ated THAAD’s de­ploy­ment with the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, was held up by the courts last month.

The front-run­ner to re­place her, Demo­crat­ic Party of Korea nom­in­ee Moon Jae-in, has said he would re­view THAAD’s de­ploy­ment if elec­ted, an­oth­er reas­on why the cur­rent gov­ern­ment is rush­ing to in­stall the sys­tem. The oth­er lead­ing can­did­ate in the race, Ahn Che­ol-soo of the People’s Party, said he would abide by the move to de­ploy THAAD, after ini­tially op­pos­ing it.

But re­gard­less of the out­come, it will likely be dif­fi­cult to re­verse THAAD’s de­ploy­ment at this point, both from a prac­tic­al and polit­ic­al stand­point.

“The pres­sures to have mis­sile-de­fense de­ploy­ments like this aren’t go­ing away any­time soon,” Karako said. “The stra­tegic need is not go­ing to change.”

What We're Following See More »
Sen. Graham Supporting Sessions
3 hours ago

"Sen. Lindsay Graham said he is '100 percent behind' embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and said there would be 'holy hell to pay' if President Donald Trump fires him. Graham also said that if the president went after special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who’s directing the investigation into possible contacts between Trump’s circle and Russia, that could be the 'beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.'"

Sanders New WH Press Secretary
4 hours ago

"With little pomp or circumstance, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stepped up to the briefing room podium and got straight to business Friday, reading announcements about "Made in America Week" and a new executive order on defense. Minutes later, newly minted communications director Anthony Scaramucci announced she was formally taking over as White House press secretary. In the aftermath of a chaotic communications staff shakeup at the White House last week, there was little attention paid to a new milestone as Sanders assumed the role."

No Instructions to Pentagon, No Change in Transgender Policy
5 hours ago

"The highest ranking military officer in the country said that the military’s transgender policy won’t actively change until President Trump sends specific directions to the Pentagon. 'There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance,' Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote in a letter."

FLOTUS First Trip Solo
5 hours ago
Two of Trump’s Top Advisors Feuding
6 hours ago

"A long-simmering feud between two of President Trump’s top advisers reached a boiling point Thursday, as White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci publicly insinuated that chief of staff Reince Priebus is a leaker."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.