By 
Engineers celebrate the installation of a locally designed and manufactured nuclear reactor core at the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. in Ulsan yesterday. The reactor, dubbed New Gori 3, is the model that will be used to run plants in the United Arab Emirates. The Korean government secured a $18.6 billion deal from the U.A.E. late last year. By Song Bong-geun
Via the Joong Ang Ilbo.
She hasn’t seen...
9:43 am on July 18th, 2010 1
Next step for Korea is to complete designing and testing the SMART reactor to compete in the medium and small reactors market and than who knows nuclear submarines is the next step (Japan and China will go crazy is this happens)
9:48 am on July 18th, 2010 2
#1 Does Korea need a nuke sub? I mean, other than bragging rights, what purpose would it serve? As far as I am aware, the only country the ROK really needs to worry about is quite close.
…and what would the consequences be if that very nearby country sank the brand new ROK nuke sub? Other than bragging rights of course.
10:09 am on July 18th, 2010 3
Well its more that developing a miniature nuke reactor is bragging rights for a country. And just so happens the biggest use for miniature nuke plants is on board navy ships.
10:36 am on July 18th, 2010 4
"Does Korea need a nuke sub?"
For the same very reason why the USA needs them: Security reason, isn't is obvious?
China already have them and Japan have many conventional subs built in the right size to receive nuclear reactors should they decide to convert them into nuclear subs.
Korea is surrounded by Japan and China in the sea so if they decide to block Korean access to open sea Korea will need the proper dissuasive mean to dealt with them.
Besides the USA won`t be forever at Korean side … and should they decide between Japan and Korea their option is clear.
"…and what would the consequences be if that very nearby country sank the brand new ROK nuke sub?"
We build many of them so if they sank one, we still have plenty submarines left.
12:59 pm on July 18th, 2010 5
We build many of them so if they sank one, we still have plenty submarines left.
LOL
2:16 pm on July 18th, 2010 6
If you've seen the size of KDX-III, which clocks in at 11,000 tons, time is near for the ROK navy to venture into the blue-water region. It could take 20 years, or 30 years, but eventually Korea will need a miniature nuclear reactor technology to propel its biggest ships toward the ocean when oil and gas are no longer as handy as it is now. Some people need to think in context of the world not ending in 2012 and continuing beyond, how some countries might find themselves in violent argument with a new superpower clad in red. Earlier the start, the better.
2:46 pm on July 18th, 2010 7
Leon LaPorte #2. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula the SK could use nuclear subs to attack ports in NK such as Nampo, fire cruise missiles from them to attack NK nuclear facilities & other targets(a cruise missile fired from offshore has a shorter flight distance than a ballistic missile fired from SK), & to attack NK naval ships, submarines, & ground forces. Hopefully a cruise missile would hit Kim Jong-Il's private train or some of his palaces or compounds and kill the SOB himself and some other members of the ruling group.
3:11 pm on July 18th, 2010 8
"(a cruise missile fired from offshore has a shorter flight distance than a ballistic missile fired from SK)"
Not only that, but submarines will be more difficult for NK's own ballistic missiles to disrupt operations. KN-02 missiles are precise enough to use as a tactical suppression weapon against Hyunmoo-I launching sites located in the northern half of ROK territory.
4:42 pm on July 18th, 2010 9
#7 I get your point. But I think a conventionally powered sub would do the trick (or some alternate energy source as those technologies mature, but nuclear?). Hell, they could launch some missles and be home for a late dinner. The distances and the depths just aren't that great. It's not like they need boomers deployed for months at a time around the world.
I'm just not sure of the cost/benefit ratio of the ROK using nuclear powered subs in the Korean theater of operations is worth it. Does it make sense?
6:25 pm on July 18th, 2010 10
"But I think a conventionally powered sub would do the trick (or some alternate energy source as those technologies mature, but nuclear?)."
Advanced AIP engines which allow submarines to remain submerged for prolonged duration before snorkeling will provide a viable submarine force for ROKN to reserve a limited but virtually invulnerable second-strike capability against a limited variety of targets (about 6~12 close-to-shore military targets per deployment, with sortie of 3 submarines, rotation of at least several days). There still exists an issue with firepower however if ROKN tries to extend the use of those submarines to wider range of precision strike operations intended emulate a minute fraction of what destruction the US forces wreaked on 2003 Iraq. Given their small sizes, the three AIP submarines that ROKN possesses today (in addition to nine non-AIP submarines, and six more AIP submarines by 2018) will be in quite a tight fit if they tried to arm themselves with a proper SLCM. They are not armed with dedicated land-attack cruise missiles, and today there exist no conventional submarines that carry a land-attack SLCM intended for precision strike roles, because any existing conventional submarine design will have to undergo a very extensive restructuring program for them to accommodate a credible arsenal of cruise missiles, by which point just building a bigger submarine equipped with nuclear reactors becomes more cost-effective and less labor-intensive. There is a clear practicality limit to the fuel efficiency of an AIP engine once submarines reach a certain size. The benefit/cost ratio of ROK using medium-sized nuclear powered submarines for operations in East Asia will eventually overtake the benefit/cost ratio of ROK using medium-sized AIP submarines.
And those who are genuinely concerned about Korea's preservation of its regional strategic interest and national security should be well reminded too that there exist more than one potential foe of Korea in the region, against whom deployment of powerful nuclear submarines as an instrument of strategic deterrence might one day become necessary.
there's some additional information about future submarine forces in East Asia here —> http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1294/2025k.gif
12:32 pm on July 19th, 2010 11
Purpose of a nuke sub is that it gives you an unassailable
second strike capability. No matter what the aggressor nation does, the defender nation can guarantee a launch of nukes / retaliatory strike. Makes aggressor nations far less aggressive when their odds of survival grow insignificant.
1:44 pm on July 19th, 2010 12
There is no requirement for a ROK submarine to possess nuclear propulsion in order to do any of those things.
2:56 pm on July 19th, 2010 13
Korea shares the same great enemy with the US in the same region.
If US feels it needs stealth fighters and amphibious assault ships and nuclear submarines in the area for safeguarding its interest and security… what makes Korea's predicament any different? We could even claim that Korea's predicament is far more dire.
3:08 pm on July 19th, 2010 14
It's very simple, really, Korea's threats are near, very near.
3:11 pm on July 19th, 2010 15
The real down to earth difference between nuke and non-nuke vessels is how long between refueling. A modern nuke sub needs refueling once every 25 years, which just happens to be their service lifetime. This means they can stay submerged for as long as they have air / supplies, theoretically this can be for a month or more and at full speed. Conventional subs need to resurface every few days to recharge their battery's and while their submerged for duration they can only go slowly.
A sub is a stealth option because you can't see them from above, if a sub isn't submerged their vulnerable and detectable. A submerged sub is much more difficult to detect / defeat then a surfaced one.
In essence, a nuke sub stays underwater much longer then a conventional one, meaning they can sneak up to the right outside NK and say on the bottom of the ocean for weeks until its time to strike. Again makes a second strike impossible to defeat when the enemy sub fleet can vanish for months at a time.
8:26 pm on July 19th, 2010 16
"It’s very simple, really, Korea’s threats are near, very near."
That works against Korea as much as it works on its favor. It's easy for Korea's present enemies to preemptively neutralize Korea's deterrent arsenal as Korea lacks substantial strategic depth due to their close proximity.
If Korea could deploy at least one sophisticated nuclear submarine away from its homeland (say, on the other side of the Japanese archipelago) at an IRBM range at any given time, with a rotation of three or four submarines, that will cement an almost permanent deterrence capability against Korea's enemies until they were able to develop a perfect countermeasure against them.
You can make an example of the nuclear arsenal of India to better comprehend and concede to my point. India's enemies too are very near to India (both of them border India in fact), but India has also deployed a new class of nuclear submarines (the Arihant class) to precisely play the role of a virtually invulnerable second-strike platform. Whichever instrument works in favor of India will work in favor of Korea with high probability. That's now the decision making ability of two major countries that you have got to challenge in order for you to continue pursuing your opinion.
Korea's military decision makers will get a nuclear submarine when they feel one is necessary. They will continue developing their SMART as they feel necessary. They are the ones best fit to judge what's needed for the continued survival of the nation.
7:57 am on July 20th, 2010 17
K 16, for clarity's sake, please list Koreas enemies.
9:11 am on July 20th, 2010 18
#17 Common sense?
9:21 am on July 20th, 2010 19
Enemies of Korea in East Asia clad their national flags in red as a background. They all have nuclear weapons. Only the reds have fought against Korea in the past 60 years. They are also the only enemies that the modern Korea expect to fight again in conceivable future.
9:26 am on July 20th, 2010 20
Why does Korea need a nuke sub again (other than bragging rights and a whole lot more expense that might be better spent elsewhere)? The enemies are here and local…
Without Tom Clancy scenarios, what would be the advantage of a nuke sub over a well built, conventional sub with modern propulsion and technologies?
9:42 am on July 20th, 2010 21
Cost-effectiveness and less labor.
A whole lot more expense that might be better spent elsewhere can be acquired through nuclear submarines, not conventional submarines of half the nuke subs' capability.
10:08 am on July 20th, 2010 22
Leon see my above post about the strategic difference between the two. A nuke sub gives a country a whole new range of options and inflicts strategic paralysis on their enemies.
"Enemies" include any country wishing to conquer or otherwise establish hegemony over South Korea. That includes almost everything north and west of the peninsula.
11:05 am on July 20th, 2010 23
I very well understand what a nuke sub is capable of, hence my question: why does South Korea need one?
11:20 am on July 20th, 2010 24
K 19, I was acting for clarity. Suppose a country has red, not in the background, but in the foreground. A red disk on white, for example. Is that an enemy of Korea?
11:36 am on July 20th, 2010 25
"why does South Korea need one?"
For the same reason others need them.
Also to export them to other countries.
People should congratulate Korea since is taking its own defense seriously.
11:49 am on July 20th, 2010 26
Foreground is not background. The red disk on white possesses no nuclear weapons. It has not waged war against Korea in the last 60 years.
Korea has a lot of gap to close to establish an indigenous minimum deterrence (or a greater chance to win a war) against the Middle Kingdom. Korea has the duty and reason to reinforce its own defenses as it sees fit for national security even if a superpower like the US is still guarding it.
10:47 am on July 21st, 2010 27
@Leon
Maybe then we must agree to disagree on Korea's defense. I'm personally for them establishing their own national defense / deterrent with as little US intervention as possible. A nuke arsenal makes a country nearly unbeatable, a mobile stealth nuke makes a country completely unbeatable. Hell even just the ability to have a completely hidden long-duration long-range striking ability is a very strong deterrent.