THAAD protesters lose the forest for the trees

The domestic problems arising from South Korea’s decision to install the THAAD system (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) are confusing. From a logical point of view, it does not make sense that procuring a missile intercept system to protect against an unpredictable adversary would stimulate this level of quarreling. 

On July 20 – when the vast majority of South Koreans were fast asleep – North Korea’s state paper published a picture revealing that it had fired three ballistic missiles. In the picture, Kim Jong Un is smiling widely. The frightening image provoked discomforting thoughts reminiscent of the start of the Korean War [1950-1953]. 

North Korea boasts that it will launch a preemptive nuclear strike on South Korea’s army facilities, airports, ports, and other types of infrastructure. As North Korea makes such threats, its state paper prints image showing missile tests. As this is going on, we in South Korea are locked in squabbles. 

Just to engage in a little hypothetical thinking – what would have happened if this recent test launch was an actual attack? Lacking a missile defense capability, how would South Korea have responded? Would citizens have criticized the army and government for lacking a defense capability? 

The South Korean government has decided to install THAAD in a small farming town called Songju. Some residents protested this choice by pelting eggs and water bottles at the prime minister. We should ask what the response would have been if the situation was different. If the North launched an attack on a defenseless South, the protests would have been more intense and widespread. 

Some members of the National Assembly have taken the position that harmony with neighboring states is more important than national security. To them, this author would like to ask whose opinion they are putting forward. They argue that improving domestic defense capabilities can actually provoke a fight by irritating nearby states. This author takes issue with this argument. 

In the 1990s, Kim Jong Il developed nuclear weapons under the banner of Songun, or military-first, politics. He paid no heed to the fact that hundreds of thousands died as he advanced this ideology, famously stating, “We can live without candies, but we cannot live without bullets.” After receiving his father’s dying wishes and rising to power five years ago, the young Kim has continued the North’s nuclear development and revealed himself to be a dangerous warmonger.   

That is the current state of things on the Korean peninsula. Local protests against the THAAD installation have focused on two arguments. The first is related to fears that the system will release harmful electromagnetic waves. To address these fears, the U.S. gave unprecedented access to the THAAD battery in Guam. Radiation measurements were taken at 1.6 kilometers from the radar, revealing an average of .0003 watts per square meter, which falls well below international safety guidelines (10 watts/square meter). The second fear is that THAAD will damage nearby greenhouses used to grow oriental melons. The content of these fears reveals that the protesters have lost the forest for the trees.       

Furthermore, further caution is needed with regards to the release of military information. Ordinary residents and reporters alike have published and released details about the THAAD base, its tactical capabilities, and descriptions of technological data. Kim Jong Un is no doubt watching these updates carefully, viewing them as a gift from the gods. 

What if, instead of the defensively oriented THAAD, the debate was centered on an offensive weapon system? Could that commotion further blight inter-Korean relations? Our attitude towards these types of questions needs to be clear. If not, we risk failing our fellow countrymen and struggling to develop the abilities and fortitude required to protect ourselves from the Kim regime.