[Yang Nak-gyu's Defence Club] Influx of US Tactical Weapons... Who Will Pay the Cost?

US Strategic Weapons Gradually Deployed on Korean Peninsula Following US-ROK Extended Deterrence Agreement
Annual Operating Costs of US Strategic Weapons Reach Trillions of Won... Burden Also on US Side
US May Demand Strategic Weapon Costs During Defense Cost-Sharing Negotiations

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Yang Nak-gyu, Military Specialist Reporter] As the possibility of North Korea's nuclear test provocations increases, U.S. strategic weapons are gathering to deploy to the Korean Peninsula. This is interpreted as a kind of 'strategic communication' that indirectly sends a warning message for 'deterrence of provocations' by publicly displaying not only strategic bombers but also nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. However, some voices of concern are emerging over who will bear the economic costs of these strategic assets.

The key measure prepared by the Yoon Seok-yeol administration to respond to North Korea's nuclear and missile threats is the extended deterrence provided by the U.S. government. Extended deterrence refers to the concept that if a U.S. ally faces a nuclear attack threat, it is regarded as a threat to the U.S. mainland, and U.S. military forces will be deployed to retaliate. To implement extended deterrence, strategic bombers, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and stealth fighters such as the F-22 are mobilized.

Extended deterrence seems to have already begun. The U.S. plans to forward-deploy the B-1B strategic bomber stationed at South Dakota base from its mainland base to Guam within this month. The B-1B bomber, nicknamed the 'Death Swan,' is a representative strategic asset of the U.S. that North Korea fears.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command recently posted photos on Twitter showing the aircraft carriers Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln operating. Without disclosing the training period or location, it added the explanation "vertical replenishment at sea," signaling a prolonged operation.

The forward deployment of U.S. strategic weapons clearly sends a deterrence message to North Korea. However, the problem lies in the cost. Operating U.S. strategic weapons alone incurs enormous expenses.

Operating Cost of B-2 Bomber is 135 Million KRW per Hour... Soars When Using Aerial Refueling
Aircraft Carrier Annual Maintenance Exceeds 300 Billion KRW, Astronomical When Including Escort Ships

Operating the B-2 bomber, one of the three major strategic bombers, costs $135,000 (about 144 million KRW) per hour. Additionally, the B-1B costs $63,000 (about 67.34 million KRW), and the B-52H costs $73,000 (about 78 million KRW) per hour. Costs increase further when aerial refueling aircraft are deployed during flight. The cost of aircraft carriers is also substantial. The average annual maintenance cost alone is around 300 billion KRW, and when adding Aegis destroyers and logistics support ships that form the carrier strike group, operational costs become even more expensive.

There is a high possibility that the U.S. will demand these costs from our government. In other words, it could influence the defense cost-sharing negotiations. Former U.S. President Donald Trump once demanded that South Korea share the costs of deploying U.S. strategic assets on the Korean Peninsula during the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) negotiations on defense cost-sharing.

Defense cost-sharing funds are limited to expenses necessary for the actual stationing of U.S. forces in Korea, such as personnel costs, military construction, and logistics support, but various other supports can be requested under different categories. In 2018, the defense cost-sharing amount was 96 billion KRW, but the total direct and indirect support scale was 2.9177 trillion KRW.

If U.S. strategic assets are deployed on a permanent rotational basis, even larger bills may be received. Permanent rotational deployment refers to the method of rotating U.S. strategic assets around the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity as a fixed deployment. If South Korea and the U.S. decide on permanent rotational deployment, the South Korean government will lose grounds to refuse an increase in defense cost-sharing funds.

Especially as President Biden's approval rating continues to decline and there are speculations that former President Trump may return to power in the 2024 presidential election, the likelihood of this scenario is increasing. For this reason, some criticize that applying extended deterrence to the Korean Peninsula situation, which is sufficiently managed by conventional deterrence, is excessive.

A government official said, "The issue of permanent rotational deployment of U.S. strategic weapons is expected to face strong opposition not only from North Korea but also from Russia and China, and diplomatic and strategic approaches are necessary to address this."