[Yang Nak-gyu's Defense Club] Three Controversial Questions Growing Around THAAD

The US Forces Korea announced on the 24th that in April last year, they conducted training to mount 'inert' rounds on the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) launcher at the Pyeongtaek US military base (Camp Humphreys). The photo is a screenshot from the Facebook page of the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade of the US Forces Korea. [Image source=Yonhap News] Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Yang Nak-gyu Reporter] Questions continue to be raised regarding the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system deployed at the Seongju base in Gyeongbu. While there are observations that the U.S. may relocate launchers or add additional deployments as it upgrades THAAD’s capabilities, and claims that the costs of THAAD deployment by the U.S. Forces Korea were covered by the defense cost-sharing fund, the Ministry of National Defense has completely denied these assertions.

John Hill, Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (Navy Vice Admiral), said during the U.S. Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget briefing on the 10th (local time), “If the THAAD launchers and batteries can be separated, it would provide a lot of flexibility on the Korean Peninsula,” adding, “The battery can be placed further back, the radar can be moved back, and the launchers can be placed in front or additional launchers can be brought in.”

The ability to separate THAAD launchers and batteries is the core of the U.S. THAAD upgrade program. This program is being carried out with a budget of $1 billion (approximately 1.18 trillion KRW) targeting all seven THAAD batteries deployed not only in South Korea but also in the U.S. mainland and Guam. The U.S. plans to replace the wired connection between the battery and launcher with a wireless one and integrate it with existing Patriot systems. Once completed, this program will expand THAAD’s operational radius (interception range) to minimize “interception blind spots.”

Because of this, there are claims that the launcher at the Seongju base could be relocated to a new base or that additional launchers could be brought in and linked with the Seongju battery. In fact, the U.S. Army is known to have already relocated a launcher last year. The U.S. Army stated in a press release that the “Delta-2 battery in Seongju, Gyeongbuk, conducted the first THAAD missile redeployment training on the Korean Peninsula.”

However, the Ministry of National Defense denied these facts.

Choi Hyun-soo, spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense, said at a press briefing regarding the U.S. announcement of the THAAD upgrade plan, “We have heard explanations from the U.S. about upgrades and performance improvements,” but added, “We cannot discuss the details specifically.” He also emphasized, “While it is stated that the performance upgrade is a long-term plan, there is a time lag before it materializes. We understand that the Seongju issue is being upgraded, but we do not yet know the specifics beyond that.”

If the U.S. adds THAAD launchers, potential sites considered during the completion of the Seongju base include Chilgok in Gyeongbuk, Pyeongtaek in Gyeonggi, Busan, Eumseong in Chungbuk, Wonju in Gangwon, and Gunsan in Jeonbuk. Chilgok in Gyeongbuk was the most likely candidate at the time of THAAD introduction. Chilgok is an area where U.S. strategic materials are stockpiled, making protection necessary due to the significant possibility of enemy Scud missile attacks. It is located outside the range of North Korean long-range artillery and has the advantage of relatively fewer residents.

Pyeongtaek, home to a large U.S. military base, is also a possibility. However, while Pyeongtaek can defend the Seoul metropolitan area, it is within the range of North Korea’s latest 300mm multiple rocket launchers with a maximum range of 200 km, which is a weakness. Wonju is advantageous for defending the metropolitan area but is considered less likely due to the potential concentration of North Korean rocket attacks. Eumseong in Chungbuk, where the Army Missile Command is located, is also considered a candidate site for THAAD deployment, but the absence of a U.S. military base there is pointed out. Busan’s Gijang is a strategic point where U.S. reinforcements would arrive in emergencies, making protection necessary, but the controversy is expected to grow due to its densely populated area.

Kim Dae-young, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Strategy, said, “Once the U.S. completes the THAAD performance upgrade, it could introduce additional launchers in cities for the defense of U.S. Forces Korea,” adding, “If THAAD costs are paid through the defense cost-sharing fund, there is justification even within the U.S., so additional deployments will accelerate.”

The Ministry of National Defense also denied this. In a text message sent to defense reporters, the Ministry stated, “The reports by some media that ‘THAAD launchers will be additionally deployed at one of Chilgok, Pyeongtaek, Busan, or Gunsan’ are not true,” emphasizing, “Any additional measures regarding the U.S. Forces Korea THAAD system in Seongju must be carried out after prior consultation between South Korea and the U.S.” This amounts to denying even the possibility.

Question 1. Is there no possibility of relocating the THAAD launchers?
Question 2. Is additional deployment of THAAD launchers on the Korean Peninsula possible?
Question 3. Was the THAAD deployment at Seongju executed purely with U.S. funds?

There is also controversy over the construction costs incurred for THAAD deployment.

It is known that the U.S. Forces Korea already executed the THAAD design costs for the Seongju base in 2018 under the name of “Camp Carroll FOS, i.e., Forward Operating Site” from the Korea-U.S. defense cost-sharing fund. The amount was $50,000, approximately 59 million KRW. The U.S. also stated that it has allocated $49 million (about 58 billion KRW) in next year’s defense budget for related construction costs of the THAAD unit deployed in Seongju, Gyeongbuk, and has considered the possibility of cost-sharing with the Korean government.

It has been known that the principle is for the U.S. to bear the costs of THAAD deployment. Accordingly, if the U.S. requests cost-sharing from South Korea through the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) negotiations, controversy could arise.

Regarding this, spokesperson Choi said, “There have been no specific negotiations regarding construction costs so far, and after the environmental impact assessment of the THAAD base is completed, close consultations between South Korea and the U.S. will take place,” adding, “We are discussing what to evaluate in relation to the environmental impact assessment and are proceeding according to procedures.”

The environmental impact assessment disclosed by the Ministry of National Defense is currently underway. The assessment proceeds in the order of “preparation of the assessment plan ? formation of a council (with participation from residents and civic groups) ? drafting of the assessment report ? residents’ briefing and public hearings for opinion gathering ? revision of the assessment report ? submission to the Ministry of Environment ? final discussion by government ministries.” It is known that the preparation of the assessment plan has been completed and the council formation stage is in progress.