Source: Privy Council No. 10
An adviser to South Korean President-elect Yoon Seok-yue said on April 6 that during talks held during a visit to Washington, Yoon's team would seek to redeploy U.S. strategic assets such as strategic bombers and nuclear submarines to the Korean Peninsula, Reuters said.
The news quickly attracted close attention from East Asian countries. Hong Kong's "Asia Times" said on the 8th that the South Korean side revealed that "the deployment of strategic assets is an important part of strengthening the US deterrence" and "the United States and South Korea have discussed this issue." Although the South Korean side claimed that the move was intended to strengthen the US deterrent against North Korea's rapidly growing nuclear forces, as early as the election campaign, inviting the United States to deploy strategic assets such as strategic bombers, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in South Korea was part of Yoon Seok-yue's campaign platform, and he also openly advocated the increased deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system that had severely damaged Sino-South Korean relations. Against the backdrop of the Pentagon's latest strategy paper positioning China as the "number one threat," it goes without saying who the invitation is more likely to target. However, what the old driver wants to say today is that in the face of South Korea's invitation, the attitude of the United States may be avoided.
In recent years, whether it is a US strategic nuclear submarine or a strategic bomber, going to South Korea to participate in deterrence against North Korea is not a new thing. As early as 2010, the United States sent the Ohio-class strategic nuclear submarine "Michigan" to visit Busan, South Korea. In 2017, the "Michigan", which is known as the "nuclear submarine of annihilation", was once again unveiled in a South Korean port, and the public foreign statement of the United States was a demonstration against North Korea. It is even more common for US B-2, B-1B, and B-52 strategic bombers to take off from the US mainland or Guam and go to the Korean Peninsula to participate in US-ROK exercises and "show force against the DPRK."
But when it comes to getting the United States to formally deploy these "strategic assets" in South Korea, the Pentagon is unmoved. In 2016, when a U.S. Air Force B-1B strategic bomber landed "for the first time in history" at the Osan base in South Korea, there was speculation about whether the United States would deploy strategic bombers in South Korea, but the Pentagon quickly formally denied this speculation.
A B-18 bomber that landed at osan base in South Korea in 2016
The idea of the U.S. military is very easy to understand. Although South Korea has large, modern airfields such as Osan Air Base that are large enough to guarantee the take-off and landing of strategic bombers, their geographical location is too bad militarily — about 120 kilometers from the North Korean border, not only is north Korea's short-range tactical ballistic missile range completely covered, but even large-caliber artillery can pose a threat to the base. Due to the special geographical conditions of the Korean Peninsula, other South Korean naval and air bases are facing a similar dilemma - basically within the range of long-range firepower of the North Korean army.
For the United States, deploying strategic assets such as expensive and limited strategic bombers or strategic nuclear submarines under the muzzles of North Korea is not only very dangerous, but also completely loses their advantages in long range and concealment. In fact, the United States only needs to send strategic nuclear submarines or strategic bombers from the mainland or Guam to appear near South Korea in a step-by-step manner to complete the task of "deterrence against north Korea." If they are deployed in south Korea, they will become "hostages" of north Korea in disguise.
It is precisely for similar considerations that in recent years, the US military, in disregard of the opposition of the ROK side, has demanded that the US troops stationed in the ROK be withdrawn to the second-tier area and gradually reduce their total strength, in an attempt to reduce the casualties of the US troops stationed in the ROK once the inter-Korean conflict breaks out and under the devastating first round of artillery fire of the DPRK army.
Today, the U.S. military in South Korea believes that the "real threat" it faces is far more than North Korea.
Large-scale exercises in South Korea's airspace by U.S. Air Force warplanes have become the norm.
At a time when the PEOPLE's Liberation Army's long-range strike firepower is developing rapidly, the US military has long confirmed that the security of the garrisons in the first island chain, including South Korea and Japan, is "unsecurable", and even the Guam base on the second island chain is difficult to say safe, so it is making every effort to promote distributed combat deployment and withdraw the main equipment of the US military in Japan and south Korea to the vast island group in the Pacific Ocean to prevent the PLA fire from being "one pot end".
Therefore, from the perspective of the US military, Yin Xiyue invited the United States to deploy strategic nuclear submarines or strategic bombers in South Korea, which is really "contrary to the current deployment trend of the US military." Some people may think that such an approach deployment can "deter China", but as long as the Pentagon is not brainbroken, it is unlikely to agree.
All in all, Afghanistan and Ukraine have demonstrated one after another what a terrible mistake it is to pin their national defense and security on U.S. commitments. Will South Korea continue on this path?