US hesitant to deploy strategic weapons
By Jun Ji-hye
The United States has fallen short of accepting South Korea’s request for the deployment of strategic weapons such as nuclear-capable bombers on the Korean Peninsula.
During the annual Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) between Defense Minister Han Min-koo and U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter at the Pentagon, Friday, the two sides agreed to “conduct a review” of whether to deploy strategic military assets to the South on a rotational basis.
This is against expectations here that the two countries would actually announce a decision on the deployment following the meeting.
Such expectations were prevalent as a high-level official from South Korea’s defense ministry strongly suggested in the lead-up to the SCM that the allies would agree on the deployment as a means to strengthen the U.S. “extended deterrence” protection of South Korea against nuclear and missile threats from North Korea.
“This could be a disappointing result for South Korea. However, the U.S. commitment to discussing the deployment of strategic weapons in the South is meaningful,” a source said.
Observers say there might have been an opinion gap between the two sides about the issue, and the deployment was just Seoul’s hope, though the two nations have agreed that the North’s threats have reached a serious level.
“We discussed a lot of options, including permanently deploying U.S. strategic assets on a rotational basis,” Minister Han said during a joint news conference with Carter, at the Pentagon. “We’ll conduct a review (of options) going forward, including those ones.”
Han also told reporters that from the U.S. point of view, it was strategically improper to talk about a certain military option during the SCM.
Sources said Washington might have decided that it would be more effective to ambiguously operate its strategic assets rather than permanently deploying them to the peninsula.
China factor
The U.S. might also have had concerns about protests from China, given that Beijing has already been expressing its strong opposition to Seoul and Washington’s decision to deploy a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery here by the end of next year, observers noted.
“Permanent deployment is not an easy option for the U.S. as it would cost a lot of money, and the country would also need to change its existing plans to operate strategic assets,” a defense expert said on condition of anonymity.
Officials said discussions on whether to deploy strategic assets and how to carry out the U.S. extended deterrence protection will be held by the Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group (EDSCG). The establishment of the EDSCG was reached at the “two plus two” talks between Han and Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, and Carter and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, which were held ahead of the SCM.
Permanently deploying U.S. strategic assets on a rotational basis means keeping at least one such asset in or over South Korea at any given time.
The U.S. has temporarily dispatched B-52 and B-1B bombers, F-22 stealth fighter jets, nuclear-powered attack submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to South Korea in a show of force in response to the North’s major provocations including nuclear tests and a series of missile launches.
But perceptions have grown among South Koreans that such one-off missions are not enough.
Carter said the two sides “discussed a number of ways that extended deterrence can be further strengthened.”
“No one should have any doubt about this. We have today the capabilities for extended deterrence ... the full weight of our alliance capabilities including all U.S. capabilities and they’re very strong, very robust, very ready,” he said.
“We are, however, talking about a number of measures, and you named one, to further enhance deterrence.”
Extended deterrence refers to Washington’s stated commitment to defend its ally by mobilizing all military capabilities — nuclear and conventional — to deal with the North’s aggression and provocations.
The U.S. has provided extended deterrence or a “nuclear umbrella” to South Korea after withdrawing nuclear weapons from the peninsula following the 1991 inter-Korean denuclearization declaration.