ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on April 21st, 2012 at 5:53 am

South Korea Announces It Has Cruise Missile That Can Strike All of North Korea

Considering how the Chinese are accused of violating UN sanctions to help the North Korean missile program maybe Washington should renegotiate its missile treaty with South Korea to not only allow them to target all of North Korea but have missiles with the range to target major population centers in China as well?:

As a warning against future North Korean provocations, South Korea has announced it has developed a cruise missile capable of immediately striking anywhere within the communist country.

Thursday’s announcement of the longer-range missile came six days after North Korea’s failed attempt to launch a rocket it says was designed to send a satellite into space. The United States and South Korea believe the launch was a cover to test a long-range missile that could eventually strike the continental U.S.

The new missile has a range of about 1,000 kilometers, approximately 625 miles, Maj. Gen. Shin Won-sik, in charge of policy planning at the Ministry of National Defense, said during a news conference Thursday. He would not release further details.

Officials wanted to “set our people at ease” with the announcement and generate confidence about South Korea’s ability to respond to potential future North Korean attacks, a defense ministry spokesman said Friday, speaking on customary condition of anonymity.

“We are consistently preparing to defend ourselves against North Korean missile threats and provocations,” he said.

A second defense ministry official said Friday that new missiles already have been deployed within South Korea, but would not specify how many or where.  [Stars & Stripes]

By the way the 1,000 mile range of this missile does put Shanghai with targeting range around the Gwangju area but South Korea would need a missile with a bit more range to be able to target Beijing.

Tags: , , ,
- 898 views
31
  • 2 ID Doc
    6:08 am on April 21st, 2012 1

    When I served in Korea 1980s I have no doubt that the US would have loaned South Korea the weapons needed to surpass anything North Korea had. I’m not sure the current administration will have the courage to back South Korea and anger China when a shooting war starts again in the region.
    “By the way the 1,000 mile range of this missile does put Shanghai with targeting range around the Gwangju area but South Korea would need a missile with a bit more range to be able to target Beijing.”
    Will the US give South Korea a bit more range if the area goes hot again?

  • JoeC
    7:12 am on April 21st, 2012 2

    It’s one thing to build a cruise missile and claim it can hit targets 1000 miles out. It’s another thing to have a cruise missile that’s been tested and proven to do that.

    Cruise missiles are very complicated and require extensive range testing to get it right. If it’s supposed to hit land targets it needs to be tested on a land range to prove it terrain navigating capability, much less the flight controls and motor’s reliability..

    So, where did Korea have access to a 1000 mile range course to test them?

  • K
    7:19 am on April 21st, 2012 3

    “but South Korea would need a missile with a bit more range to be able to target Beijing.”

    That’s not a problem with technology; the real obstacle to it is mainly politics. Like you said the US seriously needs to reconsider the usefulness of its bilateral ‘agreement’ to limit the capability of Korea’s conventional missiles. Korea is quite prepared to become self-sufficient militarily, willing to fight its wars with its own powerful weapons with as little help from the US as whenever possible, and it must be permitted to do so. The more missiles ROK military has to efficiently deliver its ordinance, the less reliant it needs to be on US air and naval capabilities. The US should carefully weigh this important benefit against whichever drawback it perceives in Korea becoming… ‘dangerously’ self-sufficient in military capacity; not to US itself perhaps, but Korea is still a latent threat to everyone else around whose dispositions are indirectly connected to US regional interest in Asia. But besides that, it can help reduce this so-called ‘waste of taxpayer’s money’ that some Americans here have been vehemently complaining about by making the US military less physically involved in Korean affairs. Win-win for everyone.

  • K
    7:36 am on April 21st, 2012 4

    “So, where did Korea have access to a 1000 mile range course to test them?”

    Do you know how a cruise missile range test works? If Korea is 200 mile wide then the testers just need to set nav points for the missile to fly back and forth the entire width of Korea five times. And this is actually how a cruise missile works in real conflict; cruise missiles rarely fly to their target in a straight line. Which means testing the missile in a straight 1000 mile range course is in fact the bad idea.

    An important information that most people are missing here is that these Hyunmoo-2 and Hyunmoo-3 missiles have actually been deployed in Korea for several years. Hyunmoo-3 series of missiles have been in deployment since 2006 and Hyunmoo-2 has been since even longer before that. I don’t think many military analysts doubt the capability of South Korean-developed ballistic and cruise missiles; like I said the main obstacle for Korea in building a successful line of various theater-range missiles is politics, not technology. The more powerful Korean missiles are, the greater concern they become politically. Technological demand is not the real concern in Korean missiles’ development; you can actually say that America’s own expectation of what highly capable missiles comparable to ATACMS and Tomahawk Korea could eventually self-sufficiently develop and deploy was the exact reason why this formal 300-km restriction on such missile development and deployment was implemented in the first place, since technological limitations alone could not be expected to stop the Korean defense industry’s inexorable approach to world class competency in the making of ballistic and cruise missiles.

  • K
    7:40 am on April 21st, 2012 5

    in the making of -> in the making and usage of

  • JoeC
    12:11 am on April 22nd, 2012 6

    #4

    My question was that missiles are usually tested over controlled air spaces. They generally have to issues NOTAMs and deconflict other traffic.

    It seem to me that testing such a missile over Korea would have gotten somebody’s attention.

  • K
    1:21 am on April 22nd, 2012 7

    “My question was that missiles are usually tested over controlled air spaces. They generally have to issues NOTAMs and deconflict other traffic.”

    That’s the same issue with the weapons of almost all non-US armed forces, in which all of Korea’s potential opponents are inclusive. I don’t think China, North Korea, Japan or Russia has a lot of chance to test many of their weapons (not just their cruise missiles but also their anti-missile arsenals) in a real setting either. It’s not really a big problem when you look at the overall issue. I’m pretty sure both countries already consider Korean missiles as very credible counter-offensive threats despite how ‘untested’ some of us think it may be. They lack more evidence that it’s a poor weapon than a good one. They’d still want to be on the safe end of the missiles’ threat, just to be safe, and so deterrence works. They will be planning their strategy assuming that Korean missiles can successfully navigate 500-1500km and precisely hit their targets. That’s the whole point of re-announcing the deployment of these missiles with more publicized details – it more credibly legitimizes Korea’s ability to physically strike back at opponents in a missile exchange. Most military experts and decision makers in the relevant countries will hardly be doubting South Korean missiles’ capability any longer, though likely they already didn’t long before with a fair amount of info from their own intel (once again, because they lacked more evidence of the missiles’ ineffectiveness; generally countries of Korea’s level of technology can make pretty good ammunition type weapons, that’s what most defense industry analysts assume).

    “It seem to me that testing such a missile over Korea would have gotten somebody’s attention.”

    Yes it did, particularly in the US, but it already happened 6-7 years ago and the attention has long since died down. There have already been multiple announcements of their existence in the previous few years. This is just the first time that the Korean government has decided to show a video footage of the missiles to the public.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp4QGwrZs74

  • Glans
    2:41 am on April 22nd, 2012 8

    K, China and especially Russia have a lot of territory to test cruise missiles.

  • K
    2:56 am on April 22nd, 2012 9

    “K, China and especially Russia have a lot of territory to test cruise missiles.”

    So does Korea.

    As far as the leaderships of Korea’s neighbors are concerned, there’s nothing dubious about Hyunmoo’s claimed ability to attack 1000 miles.

  • Glans
    3:55 am on April 22nd, 2012 10

    K, study geography. What is the area of Korea? Of China? Of Russia? Look at a globe.

  • K
    4:57 am on April 22nd, 2012 11

    Glans, I thought I could illustrate to you the specific flight path by which Korea could easily test the full range of a 1500km missile within the bounds of its sovereign airspace, but on second thought I don’t think I’m allowed to do so here. What I can tell you though is that you’ll be very hard-pressed to find evidence that Korean ballistic and cruise missiles are not strategically credible weapons against its neighbors even from informed US personnel (those with technical information and knowledge of Korean missiles) who have an exquisite standard of what defines a weapon as sufficiently effective for credible wartime use.

    Again, Korea has plenty enough airspace to test the full capability of its current inventory of ballistic and cruise missiles. I’ll leave it at that.

  • Dr.Yu
    1:44 pm on April 22nd, 2012 12

    South Korea+nukes=US soldiers can go home.
    I wonder what is holding the USA goverment from making this to happen?

  • K
    7:51 pm on April 22nd, 2012 13

    “I wonder what is holding the USA goverment from making this to happen?”

    It further legitimizes other countries’ ‘rights’ to develop their nuclear weapons, which can undermine US’s longstanding mission to globally denuclearize. Japan going nuclear in particular will put an almost permanent dent to that effort. Both American and Japanese analysts think that it is very highly probable that the Japanese government will decide to go at least moderately nuclear as a safety measure if Korea gains independent nuclear capability which is largely free of US political control. This, in turn, can strengthen China and Russia’s case for expanding their own nuclear arsenals to counter Korean and/or Japanese nuclear threats, which will then further escalate outward to other parts of the world like India, Pakistan, etc., essentially rolling back the past several decades of denuclearization. It is a chance of high enough probability that the US and also Korea are not willing to take.

  • FLASH GORDAN
    12:32 am on April 23rd, 2012 14

    Read your history Dr. Yu…we are not here to supply you with weapons. We are here as a deterrent. If President or should I say Dictator Syngman Rhee had not releases some 25,000 North Korean POWs to disrupt the Armistice Negotiations because he just did not want half, he wanted the whole peninsula the US might not be here now. But then again I think this peninsula has always needed a referee of some sorts because what I have learned living here for ten years is when a Korean is disrespected to the point that he wants to physically hurt another person he picks up a weapon whether it be a stick or a bottle they don’t fight fair. So if you gave South Korea Nukes and the Norks got Nukes I know in my heart that we (the world) can just go ahead and write off the Korean Peninsula as a radiation waste land, cause we can’t act like grownups play nice together. Another thing that I am tired of hearing about is that the US has 28,000 soldiers on the Korean Peninsula. SO WHAT!!! They are not here occupying anything!!! To occupy something you must first take control of it. The United States does not have control over the Korean Peninsula the Korean’s have control of the Korean Peninsula. During the Korean War some 1,789,000 Americans were sent here to help defend South Korea and drive back North Korean aggressions by order of the UNITED NATIONS!!!! Those 28,000 United States Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Sailors still serve here by order of wait for it, wait for it………THE UNITED NATIONS!!! I mean good grief what if no one came to the aid of South Korea after the invasion of 1950??? What in the world do you think South Korea would look like today??? Got a mental picture for you guys…remember the satellite picture of the Korean Peninsula at night with only one speck of light in North Korea??? That is what the whole Peninsula would have looked like if the United States and the rest of the United Nations had not come here to aid the South Koreans when they needed it. AND HOW DO YOU REPAY THAT DEBT OF BLOOD SHED FOR YOUR FREEDOM BY THOUSANDS OF SERVICEMEN FROM ALL OVER THE GLOBE THAT DON’T CALL SOUTH KOREA HOME???? You bitch and moan that United States has been occupying your land for the last 61+ years, when in FACT it is your own Government that keeps the United States here. When the United States talks of downsizing and leaving the Korean Peninsula the Korean Government whines and moans “Please Don’t Leave!!!” Oh ya by the way the Norks and the United Nations signed the Armistice the South Koreans never did!!!!! So put that in your reunification/peace pipes and smoke it!!!!

  • Tom
    4:21 am on April 23rd, 2012 15

    bla bla bla bla bla…

    yaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn……

  • Dr.Yu
    8:00 am on April 23rd, 2012 16

    FG,
    Thanks for your explanation.
    I agree with K, and frankly speaking half the planet agrees with K too, but what bothers me about this issue is how some guys from the US keep bitching about how SK is a colony of the USA and that because of their unconditional love for koreans, they are here sacrificing their money and soldiers for the sake of our selfish happiness and prosperity …
    What bounds S.Korea and the USA is an alliance that benefits both side in some or other way, and they day one side considers that this alliance is no longer interesting, will just leave it without hesitation.
    The USA played a vital role in S.Korea modern foundation, but as a side effect of their interest against the communist in Asia, not because of their passion for Koreans as some here (and you) want it to look. Yes S.Koreans are grateful to Americans, but dont confuse gratitude with servitude …. again, what bound our countries is an alliance not colonialism …

  • Retired GI
    10:02 am on April 23rd, 2012 17

    FG, you nailed it exactly.

    Dr Yu, your comment made no sense. “servitude”? Is that what you think America wants? Most americans (those that have heard of Korea) never want to be stationed in Korea, away form the families. I don’t recall one american soldier that wished to leave his or her freedom behind, along with their cars and homes for a year to do a job that we all believe Koreans should be doing for themselves. We are ORDERED to leave those things behind for a year to help out a country (Korea) that has not shown itself capable or willing to defend itself. We make the best of it. We also wonder when the Koreans will ever be able to do what we do for them.

    Please enlighten me as to what benefit America receives from maintaining 28K troops in Korea.
    I would really like to read that.

    As TOM has said before, Americans will leave Korea when the Korean Government says we can leave.

    Waiting! When will Koreans be able to walk like men and defend their country?

    I personally know a few hundred Americans that do not love Korea. I would bet that there are 28 thousand right now that do not love Korea. That number will double in twelve months.

  • Dr.Yu
    10:38 am on April 23rd, 2012 18

    RGI,
    Please refer to comments 12 and 13.
    Love? Hate? it is just mutual convenience, why is it so difficult to understand this simple situation? :shock:

  • Retired GI
    12:02 pm on April 23rd, 2012 19

    I couldn’t help but notice that you did not answer my question.

    Let me rephrase: How is there any “convenience” in American spending cash to send 28K troops to Korea and replace these troops individually every 12 months?

    Oh granted! There is “convenience” for Korea. There is none for the USA. It is simply an obligation.

    When are the Koreans going to stand up like grown men and defend their country?
    Not all Americans are so naive as to think there is no PROFIT for Korea in having American troops in Korea.

    I wonder what would happen if America said to hell with the United Nations. Let Korea defend itself.

    Korea on her own. Interesting idea! I like it. I’m sure 28K troops ordered to a one year tour of duty in Korea will also like that idea.

    Lets try it on for size. Don’t worry! We will come back when you need us again.

  • Tom Langley
    12:09 pm on April 23rd, 2012 20

    GI Korea, Let me make a correction here. The article said that the missile had a range of 1000 kilometers (625 miles) while your comments below stated 1000 miles so your off by 375 miles. If Kim Jong-un starts any scat perhaps the ROK Army could use the missile to target his fat piper. He shouldn’t be that hard to find by satellite since he is probably the fattest guy in North Korea. As a comparison I believe the US Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 1500 miles if my memory is correct.

  • Tom Langley
    12:15 pm on April 23rd, 2012 21

    I just watched the video link that you provided, I couldn’t get the video link to work last night. The communist North Koreans should keep something in mind if they decide to have a missile pissing contest with South Korea, the South Korean missiles ACTUALLY WORK!

  • Dr.Yu
    1:43 pm on April 23rd, 2012 22

    Ok, RGI I will bite it ….

    Q: Let me rephrase: How is there any “convenience” in American spending cash to send 28K troops to Korea and replace these troops individually every 12 months?
    A: Please read comment 13.

    Q: Oh granted! There is “convenience” for Korea. There is none for the USA. It is simply an obligation.
    A: Only IF American leaders are the dumbest people in the world. Are they? And based on your comments here you must be one of the most prominent leader of the USA. American leaders are not stupid people …. but you on the other hand ….

    Q: When are the Koreans going to stand up like grown men and defend their country? Not all Americans are so naive as to think there is no PROFIT for Korea in having American troops in Korea.
    A: Please read comment 12. Korea profits with the USA in Korean soil, and if some Americans ignore this, than they are naïve ….

    Q: I wonder what would happen if America said to hell with the United Nations. Let Korea defend itself.
    A: Well … it is a well-known fact the USA is not really in love with the United Nations and your country really likes to show them the middle finger from time to time ….

    Q: Korea on her own. Interesting idea! I like it. I’m sure 28K troops ordered to a one year tour of duty in Korea will also like that idea.
    A: Than say goodbye to Mahan´s theory in Asia ….

    Q:Lets try it on for size. Don’t worry! We will come back when you need us again.
    A: I know, it is of your best interest to put a step in Korea … only you don´t know about it….

  • K
    4:14 pm on April 23rd, 2012 23

    Retired once again, you missed a very critical point: as much as American troops are here in Korea for the sake of Korea, they are also here for the sake of the United States. This is a point that most of the American commenters in this very blog would agree, many of whose credentials as rational posters would already be quite easy for you to identify, after your long years of intellectual association with them. These same Americans could tell you in precise detail what benefits Americans gain by having American troops stationed here. An important question is for them is whether you’d be willing to listen. I’d guess many of them are not very fond of wasting time.

    Langley, both Tomahawks and Hyunmoo-3C have a stated maximum range of 1500km. The Hyunmoo A-B-C series has ranges of 500km-1000km-1500km for various operational requirements. The A’s are short enough to be fired from torpedo tubes of medium submarines, like sub-Harpoons on Type 209/214 class submarines. For naval use they are codenamed ‘Cheonryeong’.

  • Dr.Yu
    5:01 pm on April 23rd, 2012 24

    Glans #10,
    Korean missile prototipes fly around a programed course over and over until they reach their target range and than they hit the target ….. :lol:

  • Retired GI
    5:15 pm on April 23rd, 2012 25

    K, I always listen. That is why I’m here. However, that does not mean I must agree now does it.

    I understand that the reason our troops are in Korea is to prevent you from destroying yourselves. We would have to return and force you to stop killing each other.
    My point is that we would not have to return, if you wish to destroy each other, I believe we should allow you to do so. It is after all is said and done, your country and you should decide your own future. Without America having to tell you not to hurt each other.
    I don’t think you can do this as long as you have America to hold you back. You know we will step in.

    I don’t believe we should. You see, you will never grow as a country as long as America is holding your hand.

    DR. Yu, you still didn’t answer my question. Since you refer back to #12 so often, I will assume that you are telling me that Korea China and Japan will blow yourselves off the planet without America to hold you back.

    My question is in #17.

    Oh and American “leaders” are often quite “dumb”. If they were smart, we wouldn’t be there now.

    John Bolton has the right idea. North & South need to unite under one flag. I don’t really care which one either.

  • SON_OF_ANARCHY
    7:14 pm on April 23rd, 2012 26

    HA HA HA

    FLASH GORDAN MADE TOM MAKE ANIMAL NOISES!!!!!! :twisted:

  • Lary Cho
    5:45 pm on April 28th, 2012 27

    By What righs U.S has limiting S. Korea’s ability to deliver THE ENTIRE China as China has capabilities to strikce the ENTIRE S.Korea, hu? It would be repugnant that U.S is limting S. Korea’s right to develope N aremed the missile capable of striking like India WHEN China can strike ALL areas of s. Korea! It is totally unacceptabel to say the least U.S limiting S. Korea’s ability armed N deploy as it right to defend from Nuclear armed N. Korea N China N need I remind to U.S Pentagon that S. Korea is routinely threathening by N. Korea N look at Iran N Isreal case? If Isrea being routinly threathen, would U.S limit missile development N deployment by isrean to target Iran? Rotten potato smelling hypocracy of U.S policy treating Isrean N S. Korea that are supposedly vital alley like s. Korea N U.S should correct its rotten smell policy NOW!

  • Retired GI
    3:50 am on April 29th, 2012 28

    I agree with Larry Cho. :idea:

    Let the South Koreans have the Nukes. Let them take out China and the DPRK.

    Blood thirsty little savages that they are. :roll:

    They when they fail, China will take out little South Korea. Then, WW II will finally be over. :grin:

    Gives me a warm feeling just thinking about it. ;-)

  • Tom Langley
    12:19 am on April 30th, 2012 29

    I agree with Larry Cho. The Republic of Korea is a sovereign nation & has the right to do what is necessary for its national defense including the development of nuclear weapons if they deem necessary. The South Koreans know that the US nuclear deterrent may or may not be used if the communist North Koreans attack. The North Koreans know the same thing. The North Koreans also know that it is a certainty that the South Koreans would use nuclear weapons if it was necessary to protect their existence. If I was in the South Korean government I would propose the development of nuclear weapons & if the US government were to object I would tell them to go foxtrot off.

  • Dino
    3:37 am on May 1st, 2012 30

    Hyunmoo-3C has 1,500km range and SK has their own VLS,KVLS, on warships so those cruise missile are to be modified for naval use…

  • setnaffa
    6:29 am on May 1st, 2012 31

    Rhodesia did, in 1965, exactly what some of you suggest Korea should do (UDI)… Now the whole country is Zimbabwe (look it up), the folks are starving instead of having enough to sell to neighboring countries, and they’ve got a President-for-life Mugabe trained in social graces by Stalin and in economics by the Norks…

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 31864 access attempts in the last 7 days.