Seoul rejects Trump demand, won’t pay for missile system

[Belize]

Too bad their 170mm artillery rounds cant reach Seoul from the DMZ. Their ballistic missiles are another story. But it seems a THAAD system is a bit overkill. Not to mention the cost of a THAAD missile to intercept is somewhere in the 10M range. Hell, even use an Arrow3 system which is 5 times cheaper. No reason to intercept 400km away when Pyongyang and Seoul are around 200km from each other. Just use more C-RAMs. Those things are the shit.
[video=youtube_share;w4PXou0aGiE]https://youtu.be/w4PXou0aGiE[/id

Increase the Caliber a little, strap 2 of those side by side, and you've got yourself a nice base for a Vulkan Megabolter.

[Donald Hellscream]

Seoul itself is also immense - the threat of NK artillery is real, but typically exaggerated; otoh, the threat of millions of North Korea refugees fleeing south after their nation collapses (like, for example, Iraq) is usually not grasped in Western sources.

Of course, I know it takes alot of firepower to level the city, I am more concerned with how densely populated it is, even if only a small part of the city got shelled it would still leave hundreds if not thousands innocent people dead.

[Kellhound]

Of course, I know it takes alot of firepower to level the city, I am more concerned with how densely populated it is, even if only a small part of the city got shelled it would still leave hundreds if not thousands innocent people dead.

Between 1950 and 1953 South Korea lost over 375,000 civilians.

[schwarzkopf]

The amount SK has is immense as well,

Wouldn't stop them being destroyed...

[derpkitteh]

we really shouldn't ask them to pay for this.

we should just want to get it there without any troubles, because we need it there. to protect them, to protect ourselves.

[Hiricine]

Trumps going to find himself having a hard time convincing the people the US have footed the bill and effort to secure for so long to start paying for it themselves and defending themselves.

[Kellhound]

Wouldn't stop them being destroyed...

NK does not have as good of radar as SK, so its counter-counter battery fire will be less effective.

[schwarzkopf]

NK does not have as good of radar as SK, so its counter-counter battery fire will be less effective.

None of this will stop massive casualties and damage in SK ... sure, NK will cease to exist .... but that doesn't help the half a million people killed in SK.

[Deletedaccount1]

Where Trump draws the line on what he willing to spend on is nothing short of bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

He is focused on slashing small federal agencies (regardless of their efficacy or lack thereof) instead of the real money pits in the federal budget.

It should also be painfully obvious to anyone who isn't a foreign policy ideologue that the military cannot do what it needs to preserve a successful containment of hostile countries with its current budget. Arguing with a US ally about a small $1 billion missile system to preserve US interests in the region is just a hand wave to populists.

[Kellhound]

None of this will stop massive casualties and damage in SK ... sure, NK will cease to exist .... but that doesn't help the half a million people killed in SK.

That is likely an inevitable outcome at some point in the future.

[Mavett]

Too bad their 170mm artillery rounds cant reach Seoul from the DMZ. Their ballistic missiles are another story. But it seems a THAAD system is a bit overkill. Not to mention the cost of a THAAD missile to intercept is somewhere in the 10M range. Hell, even use an Arrow3 system which is 5 times cheaper. No reason to intercept 400km away when Pyongyang and Seoul are around 200km from each other. Just use more C-RAMs. Those things are the shit.

Shooting down ballistic missiles with 500-1000kg warhead is not really an overkill price wise, imagine the damages it will inflict, killing people, destroying real estate and infrastructure, the costs to cover the damages would surpass the cost of one interceptor missile, and especially in a packed place such as Seoul.

[Deleted]

Why are we even putting it there if they wont pay for it?

Because the agreement between S Korea and the US was that S Korea would provide the land and Infrastructure and the US the Equipment and Personel.

Let us not forget the whole thing is being used to spy on China because its Radar System covers parts of China, including Military areas. So the US gets that out of it also.

[Deleted]

It's become abundantly clear that Trump doesn't understand the value of power projection that US allies provide the US with.

And he do not understand what an alliance is, its one thing to say yes, but can you pay for the uppkeep/logistic for the deployed missile, or sorry our missile system are deployed in Irak/afganistan but we can license the missile system so you can build it.

To deman money upp front is a insult.

[Lynarii]

And he do not understand what an alliance is, its one thing to say yes, but can you pay for the uppkeep/logistic for the deployed missile, or sorry our missile system are deployed in Irak/afganistan but we can license the missile system so you can build it.

To deman money upp front is a insult.

The problem with that is that South Korea doesn't even really want it. It's expensive, it doesn't protect against the primary threat from NK, and it really pisses off China and that's not good for SK. THAAD isn't being installed for the benefit of SK, it's being installed for the benefit of the US. So why should SK pay for it?


People need to keep in mind that the US does not build military installations in other countries unless the US is getting something it wants out of the deal. They don't protect SK or Eastern European countries out of the goodness of their heart, and the countries in question are well aware of this. They accept such deals because a lot of times they are win-win scenarios, the US can be a very good friend to have if it wants to be. But if the deals start getting altered so that they're only beneficial to the US and a clear loss to the host country, there's going to be a lot fewer willing partners worldwide.

[AlphaOut]

Shooting down ballistic missiles with 500-1000kg warhead is not really an overkill price wise, imagine the damages it will inflict, killing people, destroying real estate and infrastructure, the costs to cover the damages would surpass the cost of one interceptor missile, and especially in a packed place such as Seoul.

The arrow3 would be more effective, is all I'm saying. 90% hit ratio and you can fire 5 of them for the cost of 1 THAAD. Which means you can fire a few towards a single target, or a cluster towards multiple. While the THAAD is a cool system, there are more cost effective routes to accomplish the same thing in probably a better way.

[Skroe]

The arrow3 would be more effective, is all I'm saying. 90% hit ratio and you can fire 5 of them for the cost of 1 THAAD. Which means you can fire a few towards a single target, or a cluster towards multiple. While the THAAD is a cool system, there are more cost effective routes to accomplish the same thing in probably a better way.

That's something people often forget about missile defense. It's not 1 interceptor (or kill vehicle) per incoming rocket / missile. It's usually at least two. Patriot PAC-3 typically fires two. Aegis fires two SM-6s. Even Groundbased Midcourse Defense fires two Interceptors.

Considering it's looking more likely than ever the US is going to have to drop enormous amount on missile defense, Multi-Kill Vehicles (multiple kill vehicles "mirv'd" to single interceptors) are the most important technology to reverse the terrible economics of Missile Defense at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with that is that South Korea doesn't even really want it. It's expensive, it doesn't protect against the primary threat from NK, and it really pisses off China and that's not good for SK. THAAD isn't being installed for the benefit of SK, it's being installed for the benefit of the US. So why should SK pay for it?


People need to keep in mind that the US does not build military installations in other countries unless the US is getting something it wants out of the deal. They don't protect SK or Eastern European countries out of the goodness of their heart, and the countries in question are well aware of this. They accept such deals because a lot of times they are win-win scenarios, the US can be a very good friend to have if it wants to be. But if the deals start getting altered so that they're only beneficial to the US and a clear loss to the host country, there's going to be a lot fewer willing partners worldwide.

Well THAAD is quite effective against the Short and Medium ranged ballistic missiles that would be aimed at South Korea that would be carring the 8-16 nuclear weapons the North Has. For that purpose, this limited THAAD deployment is effective. It is an un-ideal solution for conventional-warhead ballistic missiles, that far out number any warhead carrying ones... if the North has even achieved that step yet. But it does directly benefit the North.

Using THAAD to pressure China is a very smart move though. We don't discuss it often, but China's nuclear deterrent is largely garbage. They have about 260 warheads, and all but about 80 of them are on antiquated and/or short range systems. And of those 80, about 60 of them are on China's newest ballistic missile submarine, which is so loud it's unlikely they'd get within range to launch their missiles at the continental United States before being detected by US ASW. The remaining ~20 warheads are modern and, road mobile... but China's terrain for launching such long range weapons at the US is hugley unideal (compared to Russia for example), and it's generally believed that the US could wipe out those road mobile launchers with stealth bombers before they launched.

So to hang the specter of elaborate missile defenses in the Pacific over China's head is a smart move by the US. China's rocket technology has gotten better in the last 30 years, but the rate of advancement is laughable compared to what the US and USSR were able to do from 1950-1980. China would be at a profound time and technology disadvantage were the US to build an Aegis Ashore every 1000 miles or put 3 THAADs outside every major city, over the next decade.

Tremendous leverage on our part. We're wise to use it.