# article: Korea (South Korea or future united Korea) to be next superpower



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2010)

Now imagine if the North re-united soon with the South and reached the same level of development decades later under an ROK government? A challenge for the ROK government similar to the way East Germany was absorbed and developed after the post-Cold War German reunification?  Unlikely for now, but still food for thought.

link



> Published on h+ Magazine (http://hplusmagazine.com)
> 
> 
> *The Next Global Superpower is... Korea?*
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2013)

Caution: I'm resurrecting an old thread in order to avoid starting a new one.

Korea is an interesting place ~ at the centre of a crisis zone, to be sue, but also a growing economic and industrial power in its own right.

Its choice of the F-15SE ovre the F-35, which is discussed in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The World Outline_, may tell us something about how Korea sees its current strategic situation and the prospects for reunification:

http://theworldoutline.com/2013/09/south-korea-lost-east-asian-stealth-race/


> Has South Korea lost the East Asian stealth race?
> 
> September 1, 2013
> 
> ...




The question, for me, is "who does Korea expect to fight?"

     North Korea? *YES!* Does it really need the F-35 against NK? *NO!* The F-15SE will be more than adequate?

     China? *NO!*

     Japan? *NO!*

     India? *NO!*

     Russia? _Maybe_ ... not an immediate threat, nor a major one, but still a _maybe_. Does a _maybe_ justify the F-35?

It seems to me that Korea is making a very rational _strategic_ decision reflecting its own national priorities and the strategic realities of its region. It must be prepared to blow North Korea's air force out of the skies in the first few minutes of any war and then use its own air power to hammer North Korea's land forces. It does not expect to have to fight against anyone else; it doesn't need to overcome the Chinese J-20s or J-31s or Japanese F-35s because it cannot imagine going to war against either.

Thus the article is asking the wrong question: the issue is not "has Korea lost the Asian stealth race?" The right question is: "does Korea have an adequate air superiority over North Korea, with a margin to deal with other, potential threats?"


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2013)

A recurring argument, much to the chagrin of those trumpeting for the latest and greatest in technologies.....


> However, the most convincing explanation seems to be the fear of “structural disarmament” of the ROK Air Force should it choose to buy yet another batch of expensive fighters to replace the aging F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger fighters. Simply stated, the more advanced the fighter jet, the more costly it is. The more expensive the jet, the fewer the South Korean military can purchase. The fewer stealth fighters purchased, the smaller the ROK Air Force.



The reality is, no one has a limitless defence budget.  Only a few countries _believe_ they have; some others have lobbyists and cheerleaders pushing the envelope.  South Korea is (and hopefully Canada will be) amongst those who understand the effect of fiscal limits on structural disarmament.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2013)

ERC: 





> The question, for me, is "who does Korea expect to fight?"
> 
> North Korea? YES! Does it really need the F-35 against NK? NO! The F-15SE will be more than adequate?
> 
> China? NO!



That is, of course, assuming the China will not intervene on the part of North Korea when ROK/US forces near the Yalu River as happened in 1950. As you have stated before, China wants the US out and could live with one Korea.

If NK invades, are the US Forces in Korea considered a UN Force operating with the mandate of the UN to defend SK? If yes, what is their status if they, with the ROK push to the Yalu River?


----------



## CougarKing (2 Sep 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ERC:
> That is, of course, assuming the China will not intervene on the part of North Korea when ROK/US forces near the 38th Parallel as happened in 1950. As you have stated before, China wants the US out and could live with one Korea.
> 
> If NK invades, are the US Forces in Korea considered a UN Force operating with the mandate of the UN to defend SK? If yes, what is their status if they, with the ROK push to the 38th?



Don't you mean the Yalu River? When talking about military history, the "38th parallel" refers to the Demilitarized Zone/DMZ, which is near the pre-war borders of North and South Korea. 

Chinese forces only intervened in 1950 after US-UN forces approached the Yalu River, which pretty much delineates the border between North Korea and China.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2013)

Rifleman62: You need to look at capital inflows, into China. South Korea is both a major investor in China and a major market for Chinese goods and services. North Korea is a net drain on China ~ it invests noting, not a ₩, but they consume loads of Chinese food and financial aid. North Korea is an occasionally helpful client ~ helpful in that they keep America and Japan off balance, but South Korea is a *partner*. That's why the South Koreans do not fear China.

If (when?) China intervenes in the Korean peninsula it will be reunify Korea under a capitalist, democratic government from Seoul.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Sep 2013)

Yes, Thanks S.M.A.

Correct the error on my post.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> North Korea? *YES!* Does it really need the F-35 against NK? *NO!* The F-15SE will be more than adequate?



Mr. Campbell,

Would you still stand behind your post above even as South Korea goes back to considering the F-35?

F35 back in the running for South Korea's Fighter contest (update at army.ca's F-35/JSF thread)


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell,
> 
> Would you still stand behind your post above even as South Korea goes back to considering the F-35?
> 
> F35 back in the running for South Korea's Fighter contest (update at army.ca's F-35/JSF thread)




The F-35 is, certainly, a superior airplane. The question is: does SK need it? My guess is still No.

Old saying where I used to work: the best is the bitter ~ and expensive ~ enemy of the good enough.

Another old saying: we spend 25% of the budget for the last 5% of performance.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2013)

When looking at their air force, they need to balance factors like costs, commonality with the current fleet, the probable threat and their own doctrine. Whie in many senses the F-35 may well be "superior", if the ROK has decided they need a bomb truck that is compatable with the current fleet of bomb trucks, then the F-15 may actually be the better choice.

Indeed, given the rough terrain of Korea and the probable threat, one might actually ask why they didn't buy dozens of A-10's instead?

Of course, if you start to apply that analysis to the RCAF, then you might come up with some very different answers than the CF-35 as well.....


----------



## Crow_Master (30 Sep 2013)

Can you be a super power without haing nukes?


----------



## Crow_Master (30 Sep 2013)

Also, China will not risk it's economic relations with the US over NK. If NK attacks SK, China will sit down and watch the US knocking NK down.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2013)

Crow_Master said:
			
		

> Also, China will not risk it's economic relations with the US over NK. If NK attacks SK, China will sit down and watch the US knocking NK down.




If NK attacks SK China will be the one taking NK down. Both Koreas are in China's sphere of influence, and America's capacity to do anything is very, very limited.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Sep 2013)

Can you be a superpower without oil ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can you be a superpower without oil ?




You can as long as:

     1. The US Navy maintains freedom of the seas for all; and

     2. The markets remain (relatively) free.

If either of those fail you have a _discussion_ with Russia and the _'Stans_ about who gets their oil. In fact you have those discussions anyway ... that's one of the reasons why China keeps the _Shanghai Cooperation Council_ going.

Edit to add:

For more on that subject, see here, especially this bit: "much as it was for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, oil is China’s Achilles’ heel. Chinese domestic oil production supplies only 40% of peacetime consumption and demand continues to increase, even during periods of zero or negative growth in exports (see 2001 and 2009).  Another advantage of targeting oil is the ease of discrimination.  An oil tanker is a unique vessel, easing the blockaders’ burden when identifying and prioritizing targets.  Significant smuggling of oil in other types of ships is impractical.  In addition, China would have a hard time importing enough oil over land due to difficult terrain, underdeveloped pipelines and competition for Russian oil ... [but] ... China recognizes its reliance on foreign oil and has taken steps to reduce its vulnerability to supply disruptions.  Specifically, China has established a robust strategic oil reserve.   China’s 2011 strategic oil reserve was sufficient to supply 100% of domestic consumption (factoring in domestic production) for 25 days without rationing.  Improvements to this reserve are planned to more than double its duration by 2020, even factoring in an increase in Chinese oil demand."


----------



## CougarKing (1 Oct 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If NK attacks SK China will be the one taking NK down.



Mr. Campbell,

Did you not say this statement from the North Korea super thread that describes a Chinese intervention into North Korea as unlikely?  I reposted it below:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the issue of refugees: *the Chinese do not want more refugees from the DPRK than they have*; but they do not send legitimate refugees back to North Korea, they are allowed to stay in China, so long as they don't cause any problems, and fend for themselves, as well as they can.
> 
> *Finally: a Chinese invasion of the DPRK is not simple.* Look at the map: there are few bridges across the Yalu River and those that exist are medium capacity, two lane bridges. (The DPRK just agreed, after years and years of negotiations to one four lane bridge but construction has not started.) Regions where the Yalu is not a major obstacle are far from Chinese rail and road links and far from important DPRK objectives. *The Chinese army has changed a lot over the past few decades. It no longer consists of huge corps of infantry and artillery. It is, now, a much smaller, much more technically complex and sophisticated force - it far outclasses the DPRK army but it can no longer concentrate and outnumber or even outgun it in Shenyang Military Region.*




Tomahawk6,

Your navy, a global force for good.  :nod:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. The US Navy maintains freedom of the seas for all...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell,
> 
> Did you not say this statement from the North Korea super thread that describes a Chinese intervention into North Korea as unlikely?  I reposted it below:
> 
> ...




I most certainly did and I still take that view, but, as I said then, any Chinese intervention is unlikely in the _normal, ongoing course of events_ in which North Korea discomfits America. I think, and I said, a direct attack on South Korea is a different problem., As I said: China will "not tolerate any military action much beyond sinking a South Korean patrol boat or shooting down a ROK aircraft." Despite the practical, logistical difficulties, in the event of a DPRK attack on South Korea, I think China could and would deal quickly, brutally and effectively with the DPRK before any significant US military action could occur.

     *China cannot afford to lose South Korea as a friend.

     China cannot afford to allow the USA to assert itself on the Asian mainland.*

Those are _strategic_ imperatives; they are worth sacrificing the DPRK. In fact a reunified Korea, without a US military presence, is a much coveted "prize" and the Maoist nutbars in Pyongyang are very much worth trading for that.


Edit: typos and punctuation.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Oct 2013)

North Korea's saber rattling and China's opaqueness aside, doesn't anyone here think that the ROK is more than capable of a preemptive war to seize all of North Korea? *Qualitatively, it has a better military, both in training and in equipment supplied by the many Chaebols (South Korean giant corporate conglomerates that rival Japan's Zaibatsu), such as Hyundai.* Some say this qualitative advantage nullifies North Korea's numerical advantage.

While Seoul lacks nuclear weapons, wouldn't decapitating the North Korean leadership with conventionally-armed missiles like these be enough to sow confusion among the DPRK forces enough for the ROK to the take initiative? 

Defense News




> S. Korea Parades New N. Korea-Focused Missile
> 
> SEOUL — Tanks rumbled through downtown Seoul on Tuesday, as South Korea staged its largest military display in a decade and *paraded a missile capable of high-precision strikes anywhere in North Korea.*
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2013)

Since the response of the DPRK to a decapitating strike (or any military action) is unpredictable, I doubt the ROK sees amy scenarios where it is worth initiating military action against the North.

Although now getting a bit dated, Robert Kaplan's When North Korea Falls is still probably the best outline as to what the end game may look like. A rush to secure weapons sites, China sitting back and allowing the Americans to do the heavy lifting (and bear the costs) and the uncomfortable position of Japan vis a vi the newly created Greater Korea are all considerations that need to be considered, and how the calculus has changed since 2006 is also interesting to contemplate.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Oct 2013)

The ROKN plans a larger blue water fleet expansion. More on the already operating _Dokdo_ helicopter assault ships at this other link.

Defense News



> *S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier*
> 
> SEOUL — *The South Korean Navy believes it can deploy two light aircraft carriers by 2036* and expand its blue-water force to cope with the rapid naval buildups of China and Japan, according to a Navy source.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (14 Nov 2013)

Will this new "Silk Road" trading route actually integrate the two Koreas more and push them further towards reunification? And isn't this already a stretch of the ancient silk road comparison, considering that the original one actually stretched from the Middle East to just present-day Xinjiang? 



> *Putin in S. Korea to push new 'Silk Road' via N. Korea*
> 
> quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (28 Nov 2013)

As China prepares to launch its first probe to the moon next month, South Korea plans its own unmanned moon mission...

Huffington Post




> South Korea Unveils Ambitious Moon-Lander Plans
> 
> South Korea has unveiled designs for its planned Moon lander, a key part of President Park Geun-hye’s pledge to revitalize the country’s aerospace industry and space program.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Nov 2013)

Thats one way to get rid of the Moonies. ;D


----------



## CougarKing (24 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The F-35 is, certainly, a superior airplane. The question is: does SK need it? My guess is still No.



Seems Seoul disagrees with you since they are officially getting the JSF.



> Defense News
> 
> *South Korea Officially Selects F-35*
> Mar. 24, 2014 - 09:54AM   |   By AARON MEHTA
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> China cannot afford to lose South Korea as a friend.



This update below highlights just how much importance China places on its relationship with Seoul over its relationship with Pyongyang.



> *China's Xi heads to South Korea in 'message' to North*
> 
> China's Xi Jinping will visit Seoul next week, both sides said Friday, going to the South for his first presidential journey to the Korean peninsula as Beijing's frustrations mount with the nuclear-armed North and its confrontational young leader Kim Jong-Un.
> 
> ...


----------

