| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| ROK Missile Talks with U.S. Stuck on Range, Payload Size |
| 2012-07-16 |
| Talks between South Korea and the U.S. to revise bilateral missile guidelines seem to be stuck in their final stages. The talks, which aim to extend the range and payload of South Korean missiles, began in January last year, and officials have been saying since May that they are nearing completion. But while Washington has in principle agreed that Korea can extend the range of its missiles beyond the currently permitted 300 km, the question remains by how much and whether the payload can also be increased beyond the currently permissible 500 kg. Another question that has recently arisen is whether South Korean unmanned aerial vehicles could carry warheads of more than 500 kg. "The U.S. side recently agreed to extending the range of Korean ballistic missiles from 300 km to 550 km," said a government source here. "But we feel it needs to be extended to at least 800 km," which the U.S. does not like. A range of 800 km would enable South Korea to hit North Korean positions from relatively safe bases in the south of the Korean Peninsula in the event of an attack. But the U.S. is apparently against this because 550 km is enough to hit any part of North Korea from bases near the border, while a range of 800 km to 1,000 km could worry China and Japan. When it comes to the size of the payload, the U.S. is insisting on a 2001 agreement that said any increase in range beyond 300 km would require the payload to weigh less than 500 kg and vice versa. In other words, if Seoul is to get its wish of extending the range, it will have to accept a smaller payload. In the case of drones, South Korea also wants a payload of more than 500 kg to accommodate the long-range, remote-controlled surveillance aircraft it wants to develop. The U.S. has apparently accepted some of these demands. The guidelines themselves are technically a political promise and not a legally binding treaty. According to a key official who participated in the talks in 2001, the guidelines can in theory be scrapped if either side informs the other six months in advance. But Seoul has abided by the guidelines so far because it does not want to damage its relationship with Washington, which is crucial for its national security. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #12 "But we feel it needs to be extended to at least 800-km" ... Read, ROK AWARENESS OF THE STEADILY REALISTIC CHINESE THREAT TO NORTH KOREA - SPECIFICALLY, THAT DPRK STATE INTEGRITY, COHESION IS STARTING TO IRREVERSIBLY CRUMBLE + DISINTEGRATE, + THAT CHINA WILL NOW UNILATER TAKEOVER NORTH KOREA [administer-iff-not-formally-annex] MUCH M-U-C-H SOONER THAN ANTICIPATED IN ROK, US CONTINGENCY SCENARIOS. The US + Russia may not be able to stop China short of risking destructive Nuclear War??? The Great Game of Chicken in NE Asia is moving beyond its head, + everybody's struggling eyelids is trying H-A-R-D NOT to blink first??? --------------- * TOPIX > KOREA, CHINA, + JAPAN IN RACE OVER CONTINENTAL SHELVES. * SAME > TOKYO MOVE [Envoy recall back to Tokyo] SEEN AS PROTEST AGZ CHINA'S HARDENING STANCE OVER SENKAKUS. "China's hardening stance" > Will say it again that this must be expected from Rising China all along the "First Island Chain", "Second", + IOR FROM NOW ON. Rising China wants its "post-US", "New World #1" Manifest Destiny ASAP AMAP ALAP, + isn't going to accept being isolated or contained in East Asia + WESTPAC by the US-Allies widout a fight. Again, CHINA WANTS OVERSEAS FOREIGN BASES FOR THE PLA AND ITS N-O-T GETTING IT, ESPEC AS PER ANTI-CHINA RESISTANCE FROM THE SMALLER STATES [ASEAN] THROUGHOUT THE CHINA-PERCEIVED VITAL/DECISIVE "FIRST ISLAND CHAIN" GEOGRAPHICAL = MILPOL DIPLOMATIC BARRIER IN EAST ASIA + WESTPAC, E.G. EAST CHINA + SOUTH CHINA SEAS. China histori supported both the Okinawa separatist movements as well as the Commie national movement [Japan Red Army]. It wants SIGNIFICANT NAVAL, MILITARY RIGHTS + POLITICAL INFLUENCE on former vassal state Okinawa = Ryukyu Kingdom. China wants Okinawa + Senkakus to help protect its desired future PLA Milbases on POST-REUNIFICATION TAIWAN, a Reunification which in China's mind has NOW seemingly stalled, SERIOUSLY IFF NOT PERMANENTLY, due to ON-GOING US arms sales to Taiwan + other US policies. The US portends to support PRC-Taiwan integration + reunification but simul undermines same by selling advanced arms to Taiwan. * WAFF > [StrategyPage] RUSSIA SENDS [Japan] A MESSAGE. OFFICIALLY, ITS PER THE ON-GOING RUSSO-NIPPON DISPUTE OVER THE KURILES. UN-OFFICIALLY, IMO RUSSIA'S REAL "MESSAGE" IS TO CHINA, NOT JAPAN. * NEWS KERALA > FIVE CITIES CAN REPLACE QUAKE-HIT TOKYO, in a worst-case scenario. Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo, Sendai, Fukuoka. * CHINA DAILY FORUM, TOPIX > 30-VESSEL CHINESE FISHING FLEET ARRIVES IN NANSHAS [Spratlys]. CDF POSTER-BLOGGER Thread > JAPAN BELONGED TO CHINA SINCE ANCIENT TIMES. * SAME > ASEAN SUMMIT BREAKS UP AMID FEUDING OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA. * TOPIX > CHINESE FISHERS SWARM SPRATLYS. * SAME > CHINESE FISHING FLEET ARRIVES IN SPRATLYS, PHILIPPINES WARNS AGZ INTRUSION. * SAME > THAILAND THRUST IN ISLAND DISPUTE, as Thailand is new ASEAN Coordinator for China for next three years, i.e. 2013-2016. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-07-17 00:00 |
| #11 Kia isn't an acronym. It's the name of a motor company. KIA is an acronym meaning killed in action. |
| Posted by: gromky 2012-07-16 21:34 |
| #10 I also first read KIA as something other than the car brand |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-07-16 20:22 |
| #9 Clearly I've spent too much time reading Rantburg. Careful, tw. You are in danger of becoming a war nerd. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-07-16 20:21 |
| #8 And leave the Norx...to the Chinese. Yes, I'm sure the Chinese need to be rewarded for its help in creating North Korea in the first place. >spit!< |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-07-16 20:14 |
| #7 We bought a KIA recently. I had to read that twice -- the first reading sent a chill up my spine and into my heart. (No, geography is not one of my skills. Why do you ask?). Clearly I've spent too much time reading Rantburg. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2012-07-16 20:13 |
| #6 We bought a KIA recently. Excellent vehicle. Goes from point A to point B with ease and efficiency. (Assembled in the USA -- win/win.) Methinx the ROK could manage this sort of thing with their defense as well. And we could finally go home. And leave the Norx...to the Chinese. |
| Posted by: Shinter Javirong9154 2012-07-16 17:59 |
| #5 Why do we care? Allowing the ROK to have larger, longer-range missiles allows them to threaten the Norks more appropriately. That allows them to take on more of their own defense. I personally would let the ROK build anything it wanted to build, and I'd specifically tell China that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-07-16 17:44 |
| #4 Talhs should consist of "You shoot at us, or our friends, YOU DIE" end. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2012-07-16 17:19 |
| #3 Why do we care? |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2012-07-16 13:13 |
| #2 Amen Pappy! For the younger crowd who luckily have no recollection of this very painful period in history: After years of arguing over such things as the size of the table they would negotiate at, both sides [Paris Peace talks over the War in Vietnam] finally came to an agreement they could live with and the cease fire agreement was signed on January 27, 1973. Link |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-07-16 09:08 |
| #1 At least they got past the size and shape of the negotiating table... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-07-16 09:00 |