| Submit your comments on this article | |
| China-Japan-Koreas | |
| ROK Military Capability 'Inadequate' | |
| 2010-02-01 | |
| An American academic says South Korea's military capabilities are inadequate to handle a North Korean invasion or other North Korean military action or regime collapse there. In an article entitled "Managing Catastrophic North Korea Risks," Bruce Bennett, a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, said South Korea could face a crisis if it fails to enhance its military capabilities through modernization of equipment and personnel capable of using and maintaining it. He cited South Korea's outdated weapons, inadequate military budget, and reduced conscription period as the rationale for his claim. Many major South Korean weapon systems "are very old, such as M48 tanks and F-5 aircraft originally designed and produced three decades or more ago," he said. By contrast, "the U.S. military spends some 16 times as much as the [South Korean] military on equipment acquisition each year despite the U.S. forces having only twice as many personnel. U.S. military research and development spending is some 50 times" South Korean spending each year. He said that the South Korean military budget "has been too small to acquire key military capabilities. Thus few [South Korean] soldiers have GPS to identify their own or adversary locations with accuracy, making precision battlefield attacks difficult and increasing the potential for friendly fire. But in civilian life, many soldiers have GPS in their cars." He pointed out that South Korea and the United States have worked together for almost 60 years "to deter and defeat North Korean military threats. But while the United States remains ready to assist" South Korea, Seoul's security is ultimately Seoul's responsibility and it "must take the lead." South Korea's military budget is inadequate for "assuring the security of the Korean people from North Korea's catastrophic threats," he added. To enhance military capabilities, the Defense Ministry in 2005 prepared a Defense Reform Plan 2020, requiring 9.9 percent annual military budget increases for 2006 through 2010. "Instead, the average increase has only been 7.2 percent, placing the 2010 military budget roughly W3.5 trillion behind the plan," he said (US$1=W1,153).
He advised that Seoul enhance its capabilities urgently, citing the possibility of a North Korean invasion or other North Korean military action or its collapse, and "Korean unification -- a potentially very large and long-term job." Seoul needs to take practical measures for "substantial [military] budget increases," he added. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 My KATUSAs were fine except for one lad who had a problem dealing with a female Warrant Officer. Turned him over to the senior enlisted Korean NCO in the brigade to handle. When that failed, he was recycled back in to the ROK Army. Since it took a lot of 'pull' and influence just to get a KATUSA gig, the family lost what ever they put into the process. That, and recycles weren't treated very well by the less economically privileged draftees and NCOs in the ROK Army ranks. When the NKors blitzed south in the first war, most of the terrain between the 38th and Seoul was largely undeveloped. When I left in '89, it was urban sprawl from Uijeongbu south. Probably even more now. There won't be a blitz. I doubt that the NKors will even get close. Most of their troops will end up looting and pillaging for food and goods, of which there is plenty along that corridor. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-02-01 20:02 |
| #10 Korean Augmentation to US Army |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-02-01 19:06 |
| #9 What's KATUSA? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-02-01 19:03 |
| #8 What it sounds is that the ROK hasn't carried its share of the load for its own defence relying on the US taxpayer and eventually US blood to pull its chestnuts from the fire. Nails it. ROK follow American Soldiers around like puppy dogs watching and waiting for us to do stuff. The KATUSA program is the biggest joke ever. I used to teach some Katusas at a command sponsored class and they would fall asleep and yak in Korean the entire time I was trying to teach them. Then I'd walk outside the base gates in civilians and be face to face with jerks carrying pickets protesting our presence. Fine, I say fend for yourselves. |
| Posted by: shebeest 2010-02-01 17:17 |
| #7 Here is a link for the ROK Army's equipment listing - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/army-equipment.htm A lot of the older stuff is down much further south and is being modernized like the Israelis did with older equipment. So saying a tank is an M48 is a bit misleading because it is an M48 with a laser rangefinder, new high pressure 90mm or 105mm main gun with depleted uranium sabots, reactive armor add-ons, and an NBC-capable climate control system. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-02-01 17:08 |
| #6 Funny how they don't have the capability but Hyundai and Kia didn't go broke. |
| Posted by: Jerong and Tenille7982 2010-02-01 11:54 |
| #5 It's BS. Take a look at SK's TOE. They have plenty of F-16s and F-15s plus older F-4s and F-5s. They also make world class armour and artillery and are designing and building their own entry level fighters and helos. SK is replacing their older equipment quickly since they will take over primary responsibility for defense in 2012 and massive American reinforcement won't be guaranteed. This while NK is (barely) flying mostly Mig-17/19 and Mig-21s. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-02-01 10:35 |
| #4 What it sounds is that the ROK hasn't carried its share of the load for its own defence relying on the US taxpayer and eventually US blood to pull its chestnuts from the fire. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-02-01 10:19 |
| #3 US air power could easily take out Nork tank columns and ensure ROK had enough time. The old problem was fear of escalation leading to human wave attacks from China and possible nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The Norks have lost this backing forever and even they realize it. This completely changed the strategic calculus in that region. The US should be gradually our troops stationed in Korea both to save money and to get them out of the way of a missile strike. The value of air power can be over-estimated, but it's great for repelling an attack by a conventional army, especially in support of a decent enough standing army like ROK's. |
| Posted by: Odysseus 2010-02-01 08:26 |
| #2 SKOR does have the industrial capacity 7 technology to build weapons - if it doesn't fall to the Norks before they get a chance. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-02-01 07:41 |
| #1 "Korean Unification" > e.g. WMF + SINA > IIUC, CHINA broadly already fears deployment of US GMD-TMD along the DPRK-ROK DMZ - WHAT MORE FROM any post-Unification NORTH KOREA which Chin also believes will turn agz it, + deploy US GMD-TMD + other US mil forces right on the Chin border wid the now newly unified Koreas. E.G. FORMER COLD WAR SOVIET SSRS trying to join NATO; POLAND, etc. + US BMD on borders wid RUSSIA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-02-01 01:23 |