Well, this Chosun Ilbo exclusive, if true, might shake things up in this neighborhood. Apparently, the South Korean Ministry of Defense is considering plans to build nuclear-powered submarines. This is my initial translation - I’ll link to the official (i.e., copy-edited) version when it gets posted:
With tensions continuing between Korea and Japan over Dokdo Island and calls being made within Japan for the nation to arm itself with nuclear weapons, it has been learned that military authorities are secretly considering plans to deploy 4,000t nuclear-propelled submarines sometime after 2012 in order to counter threats from neighboring countries like Japan and China.
Nuclear submarines, which are propelled by nuclear power generated from small on-board nuclear reactors, can remain underwater much longer than conventional submarines propelled by diesel generators and are a strategic weapon carrying with them strategic significance second only to aircraft carriers. Moreover, since nuclear-powered submarines use low grade nuclear fuel, like nuclear power stations, they do not violate Korea?s non-nuclear Korean Peninsula pledge of 1991. A high government official said Sunday that he knows the Ministry of Defense and Navy have been actively considering independently building nuclear-powered submarines since last May. He said that this was linked to efforts to build an independent defense in order to insure the nation?s independent right to survive amidst threats from surrounding great powers after unification. To do this, the Navy assembled a 30-man team last June and is currently spurring on concrete designs and construction plans. Military authorities are now considering plans to start building the subs in 2007, following a period of general planning lasting from this year until 2006. The plans call for a number of subs to be deployed at two or three year intervals, starting in 2012.
There are only five countries that currently build and possess nuclear-powered submarines ? the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China. If Korea builds nuclear submarines, it will become the sixth; such a development would be expected to make waves internationally as Japan and China respond. In fact, it?s known that the United States got wind of this information at the end of last year, and USFK and intelligence officials are still trying to grasp the exact details and background information.
The MoD, however, is strongly denying the report:
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defense held a press conference on this Monday, during which it denied reports that it was considering the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines after 2012 in response to security threats from neighboring countries like Japan and China. Weon Jang-hwan, the Defense Ministry?s Acquisitions Policy Adviser, said that because the Navy currently has nine 209 Class (1200t) subs and is planning to launch three 214 Class subs (1800t) by 2007, the service can sufficiently carry out independent missions in the seas around the Korean Peninsula. Moreover, when one reflects on the cases of other countries with nuclear submarines like the United States, he said, there doesn?t appear to be enough reason for Korea to possess them, and because of the Korean Peninsula non-nuclear declaration, practically speaking, it would be impossible to build them without the prior consent of the IAEA. He said that electric and diesel power was enough to propel submarines of up to 3500t, and there was no reason why Korea should develop its own nuclear-powered submarines while violating even the North-South non-nuclear declaration.
Anybody remember that 1999 classic sub thriller, Phantom: The Submarine?
The reporter behind this exclusive, Yu Yong-weon, is taking a fair amount of abuse from the Chosun’s readers for revealing national security secrets in South Korea’s most widely-read daily newspaper (it doesn’t help that the Chosun is also widely read in Japan). Frankly, though, you don’t tell a reporter something and not expect to see it in print the next morning. Assuming the story’s accurate (a big assumption, BTW), I’m curious as to who the hell leaked this to the Chosun, and why.
Anyway, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Frankly, on an simply emotional level, I’d love to see South Korea start pumping out nuclear subs. It has the skills and the resources, so why the hell not? Unfortunately, these are the sort of things the Americans tend to frown upon — if Washington determines that Seoul really is trying to build nuclear subs, expect a ton of pressure to make sure that it doesn’t happen. This not only sucks, but is quite ironic, given that the Americans themselves are rather loath to forgo advanced and possibly destabilizing weapons systems. Still, one has to wonder how much safer nuclear subs are going to make South Korea if all the development does is spur China to expand its own nuclear sub fleet (in a manner in which Korea could not compete, quantitatively speaking) and Japan to develop their own fleet of nuclear subs (in a manner in which Korea could not compete, quantitatively or qualitatively). You’d hate to see the country spend itself into a hole trying to compete in a naval race it never had a shot in hell of winning in the first place. That being said, China and Japan are likely to find themselves in a naval race regardless of what the Koreans do, and it wouldn’t hurt for the Koreans to be packing the best weapons systems they can muster — it’s a dangerous neighborhood, even without considering the Russian Pacific Fleet rusting in Vladivostok. Besides, the Koreans have a fine naval tradition, and as long as they are able to come to some sort of arrangement with another regional maritime power with a fine naval tradition, an expanded role for the ROK Navy might not be such a bad thing, afterall.
UPDATE: Official English version up at the Digital Chosun.
25 Comments
So, are they going to have Hyundai build them so they get a 10 Year / 100,000 mile warranty?
badum bum…
Thank you thank you, I’ll be here all week.
Honest question– why would America frown on this? South Korea doesn’t strike me as interested in long-range force projection, and subs would be just the thing to keep the North nervous.
Pls. fill me in on what I’m missing.
Thanx,
Kevin
korea might end up selling them to china. that’s a bad thing.
Good point.
Kevin
This lead bothers me:
…and calls being made within Japan for the nation to arm itself with nuclear weapons, it has been learned that [South Korean] military authorities are secretly considering plans to deploy 4,000t nuclear-propelled submarines…
A nuclear weapon is “A device, such as a bomb or warhead, whose great explosive power derives from the release of nuclear energy.” (Source).
A nuclear-propelled submarine is just a submarine with a really really quiet engine that can go a long time underwater. The only ones that really get to enjoy the “release of nuclear energy” are the onboard engineers (ELTs, if you’re so inclined). By design, they’re not designed for “great explosive power”. (Rude jokes about the Kursk and the Thresher are unappreciated.)
They’re not mutually exclusive - there are nuclear weapons deployed on nuclear-propelled submarines, there are conventional weapons deployed to nuclear-propelled submarines, there are nuclear weapons deployed to conventional (DBF) submarines, and there are conventional weapons deployed to conventional submarines.
If the Japanese are serious about building a nuclear weapon (and the Koreans are worried about being the target), a nuke boat makes no sense - unless you’re looking to run patrols (with your conventional weapons load) near Tokyo Bay.
…and you’re right, it makes no sense, especially if you’re going to be a trivial player in Cold War II.
Kevin,
This doesn’t seem to be in reaction to NorK intentions, but Japanese. South Korea already has diesel submarines to make the north nervous.
I imagine that a nuclear South Korean Navy would have a choice of three areas to operate, as you could imagine, with the West making China nervous, and the East/SoJ and South Seas making Japan nervous. There would be obvious problems operating in Japan’s area of concern, and the Korea tendancy may be to hang out on the West Coast - perhaps near the Northern Limit Line during crab season - which would certainly make China uncomfortable - which would certainly make the US uncomfortable.
Cap’n,
China’s got some Han-class boats, I think they’re “oh-niners”. They’re already a nuclear blue-water navy.
Steve
Great, at a time when the Japanese and Koreans should be getting along in the face of North Korea and the lumbering threat of China (in the near future) they’re playing a nuclear end game.
Question: Is there any way of reconcilation between Japan and Korea? Or is the nationalism that is prevalent in Eastern cultures too much to overcome at this current point in time?
steve,
han class boats make great sea bottom ornaments. which is what they’ll be if they go up against our navy. china’s best subs are kilo class subs they bought from russia. which is my point. korea can make better subs and ships than china currently can. china’s military industrial complex is still growing and not up to par with the west.
chris,
a common enemy typically bonds people. korea has still not awoken to the fact that china may be a threat. japan however already knows they are marked for a conflict. where the chips are going to fall is anybody’s guess but if past actions are future predictors, korea will buddy up with japan and the US for protection.
This kind of report only goes to give further evidence of America’s role in North East Asia. While I think it is time for USFK to leave Korea, at the same time it’s departure would lead to the mother of all arms races. Cool heads in both South Korea and Japan realise that America’s presence has given the peace and security, as well as markets, to have almost sixty years of peace.
Of course America does not want Japan and Korea to have nuclear subs, as the ensuing “sub gap” would only force America to spend even more on forces to stabilise NE Asia
Great, at a time when the Japanese and Koreans should be getting along in the face of North Korea and the lumbering threat of China (in the near future) they’re playing a nuclear end game.
Question: Is there any way of reconcilation between Japan and Korea? Or is the nationalism that is prevalent in Eastern cultures too much to overcome at this current point in time?
Posted by: Christopher at January 27, 2004 03:47 AM
the South Koreans AND the japs against the North Korean Brothers?
that’s STUPID
AND THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
NEVER
Lux,
Never say never. Anything is possible.
well, with so many of you fine expats calling for the removal of american troops so that korea can be gobbled up by her neighbors, it’s quite right for the koreans to arm themselves. did you think they wouldn’t?
most of you are saying that korea may cause an arms race if they build nuclear subs. ohhhh, so i guess korea should remain a militarily weak country so as not to disturb the status quo. that staus quo, btw, has south korea and a future united korea dependant on a foreign power. you will understand that the koreans want no part of that.
so many of you get korea wrong because you can’t think outside the box.
i always knew korea would be a success. korea will not fade away.
sorry.
South Korea has the world’s sixth largest military and something like its ninth or tenth biggest defense budget: hardly a militarily weak country. Shin Jong Il, I sincerely wish you could bring more to these blogs than just your snotty attitude.
Luxie,
The one thing I miss hearing from young Koreans such as yourself when you get all starry-eyed and nationalistic is this: COST.
Actually, I am all for Korea reuniting and all for Korea ending it’s “alliance” with the USA but understand that there is cost it. Anything spent on military aquisitions, not to mention the huge expenditures that reunification will entail, have to be made up by increased taxation, more economic growth or decreased spending on things like education and social welfare. Korea’s GDP is about $450,000,000 and not really prepared to give everything to everyone just yet.
North East Asia when through a hundred years of turmoil from 1850-1950. Pax Americana is, no matter what Korean flag wavers may state in their emotional diatribes, what has kept the peace for the last 50 years. America has also soaked up most of the exports from the four Tigers, Japan, China, Taiwan and Korea.
This is perhaps worth remembering. Slogans do not buy airplanes, submarines or schools.
I don’t think Shin is being snotty — he’s a nationalist, which I can appreciate, and personally, I enjoy many of his comments, even if I disagree with them. I also appeciate the fact that no country likes to be dependent on another nation for its security. Bush, after all, did say in his State of the Union address that the U.S. will not rely on permission from other countries to ensure its security, and I can certainly understand how Koreans would feel the same. My disagreement with Shin on this issue (actually, it’s not that major of a disagreement, because I personally agree with him that South Korea should build those subs) rests with his characterization on the status quo; yes, the status quo has left Korea dependent on a foreign power, but it has also allowed [South] Korea to undergo one of the most extraordinary periods of socio-economic transformation ever for a former colony. It has also allowed the nation to enjoy a fair degree of security during a very dangerous time in human history. That being said, the status quo won’t last forever, and Korea needs to prepare itself for a time when having an alliance with the U.S. won’t mean quite what it does now. I’m not saying it should trash the alliance — the alliance, after all, is still useful — but it needs to ensure that it can protect itself in all contingencies.
“Nuclear submarines, which are propelled by nuclear power generated from small on-board nuclear reactors, can remain underwater much longer than conventional submarines propelled by diesel generators and are a strategic weapon carrying with them strategic significance second only to aircraft carriers.”
I think that is the money quote from the article and it brings me to wonder why in the world Korea would want to build nuclear submarines? Is Korea now planning to increase its military presence beyond the region? Is it just a pride issue? The reason I ask is because it is hard to see it as an issue of national defense.
If Korea is basing this upon defense, the billions of dollars it takes to build a nuclear submarine would be better spent on other military items. Diesel / Electric subs, patrol boats, aircraft and other items.
I have to echo Plunge’s comments.
Check me on this, but my impression was that nuclear powerplants, as a rule, have a larger acoustic signature than comparable non-nuclear powerplants. The major rationale for nuclear propulsion is range, not stealthiness.
So is South Korea trying to drop its previous emphasis on self-defense in favor of a power projection role?
If you South Korean commentators here want to be independent of U.S ground troop presence, I agree and I think that’s great. I’m all in favor of your assuming the full economic burden for your own ground defense–we (U.S.) need our ground forces for use elsewhere.
We can and should provide long range air and naval support (to include nuclear submarines), if you sincerely want to continue the alliance. We have them already; you should use your defense expenditures for the upgrade of conventional ground forces, and local air and naval forces).
However, if you want to provide yourself nuclear powered submarines for prestige reasons, then be my guest. In that case nuclear support from the U.S will no longer be needed; we can end our alliance with you, and you can assume your rightful “place in the sun” as a major player in NE Asia.
I can’t wait to congratulate you on that day. I’ll be careful to do so from a distance, of course.
It only makes sense that a nation with no oil reserves and growing blue water ambitions/obligations would consider nuclear plants for their submarines and ships. It is quite a bit different to have nuclear reactors then nuclear weapons.
Excuse me for making this comment here, but I have tried to comment at the site http://koreawatch.org and I keep being told to fill out the “proper” information.
Charles, I would love to comment on your site, but it will not accept my information.
Next, a comment on your comment. With the South Korean aliances, I can’t see them having difficulty in obtaining the required amount of fuel.
You know,I think that Korea just needs to be able to defend itself. No, that doesn’t mean that the alliance should trashed and that American forces leave, but it will be better if Korean forces be able to defend their country in case the U.S. troops can’t. And, it would also be better for the alliance if the United States gives South Korea full jurisdiction, as that is always a big issue in South Korea. For example, a U.S. man was caught dumping chemicals of harmful nature into the han River in Seoul, the capital of South Korea. And now, the he is being protected in a U.S. military camp in Seoul so that he can’t be tried in a Korean court. The U.S. military says that the USFK holds jurisdiction in this case, but this is not true, as the man was caught dumping while off-duty, unless dumping was his duty.
Plunge, is the man in question a military man or a civilian? If the latter, then I don’t know what will happen, but if it’s the former, then he’ll be punished by MILITARY law first, and (once he’s done with that) then he will be sent to SoKor for his punishment in that country. US military personnel have to follow a code called the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice), a set of laws that they must abide by no matter where they are because they are military.
Having nuclear submarines is important for their nation if they want to be less dependant on others. Unfortunately, the cost of nuclear-powered boats is far greater than that of normal ones. Then, also, their primary design task is important. Are these anti-ship submarines or ballistic missile submarines? I’m not up to snuff on the details and specifications of SoKor’s long range missiles, but if they are not of extreme range then the range of the boat is a big concern. Perhaps they want to be able to drop missiles in the capitals of Japan, China, or NoKor, and be able to prove and openly proclaim this as a detterant to hostile action. That and the fact that ships require ports. Nuclear powered vessels can operate for an extended period (months, even) without returning to port. COnventional vessels do not have such capabilities. SoKor strategists may believe that a likely attack by a hostile neighbor would (in the early hours of an attack) cripple the ports that support their military vessels. In this case, nuclear powered subs would be essential, as they would be able to reply in like kind for a long time before having to return home. With the proper allies or ship deployments ahead of time, such vessels could be re-armed at sea and fight for extended durations.
All this is speculation, but there are many reasons why they may be interested in nuclear submarine capability. Then there are the aforementioned ‘prestige’ reasons. I don’t know the motivations behind their higher-ups, but I’m pretty sure they have a good reason for what they are doing, even if their attempts to keep it secret have failed miserably.
My take is that the Chosun Ilbo is blowing nationalistic Korean pride smoke. The prominence of their “Korea will be the sixth” statement coupled with clearly inaccurate statements (e.g. “submarines use low grade nuclear fuel, like nuclear power stations” when actually submarines use enriched Uranium in order to make the plants compact enough to actually take to sea). Additionally, the current ROKN submarine program is barely nine years old itself (first boat comissioned in 1994 as I remember). And while the ROKN does well with their 209’s, the ability to indiginously produce nuclear vessels is a very costly and difficult endeavor. Just ask India, that have been working on their nuclear submarine program for at least 15-20 years already. This one reason why the USN pushed so hard to keep our submarine construction line rolling, because once it stops there are so many single source suppliers that would dry up that getting it started again will be damn near impossible. Can either the ROK economy or government support the creation of multiple industries that will rely almost exclusively on nuclear submarine construction for their sustainment? I’m, no expert, but I doubt it.
As to the benefits of a nuclear submarine, it has accurately been expressed before that diesel-electric propulsion is quieter than nuclear and that the benefits relate to range, speed, flexibility and time on station. All of these factors are essential for USN power projection, but of less importance for regional security. For the ROKN, the major benefit I can see for nuclear power is time on station. This would allow them to place a fully armed multi-sensor surveilance platform wherever they felt necessary for as long as the food holds out. In the event of international tensions, being able to stay on the line indefinitely has its advantages.
When the US sends our boys to act as sacrificial triggers to insure an N Korean attack will automatically insure US response, then there must also be some leeway for the inevitable “incidents”. Otherwise, we will expose our boys to arbitrary and malicious snipping from the “hostile” locals. In an imperfect world, we must focus on the big picture and not on the 1% deviance from the ideal. IF we can put our boys at risk for the major benefit of S. Korea, I don??ั๊ฝt think it is unreasonable to expect S. Korea to suck-up a few ???๋ฐฟncidents??? without making a big fuss.
I wouldn’t call running over girls with a tank an “incident.”