hankyoreh

The debate over a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system appears to have quieted down after heating up the peninsula in recent months. For now at least, the issue looks to have slipped below the surface. But high-ranking US military officials now seem to be making efforts to keep the THAAD debate alive, with US Pacific Command commander Samuel Locklear and USFK commander Curtis Scaparrotti recently saying that discussions were under way on the deployment of a battery on the Korean Peninsula.

The key issue at the heart of the debate, which erupted out of the US - and specifically the US military - last year, is the matter of land. In the wake of a May 2014 report in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the US military had investigated potential THAAD sites in South Korea, Scaparrotti confirmed that a deployment request had been made to Washington. The land issue proved to be the starting point in an ongoing controversy.

Last month, USFK issued a press release noting potential THAAD deployment sites in South Korea and reporting an unofficial survey to find a suitable site for future deployment. The debate began gathering momentum rapidly from there, with leaks about the US military personnel touring candidate deployment sites in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province; Daegu; Wonju, Gangwon Province; and the Gijang County area in Busan.

The land issue was what the US military used to stoke the debate. But the question that arises is whether it is able in practice to unilaterally decide to investigate potential THAAD sites on South Korean territory. The building of ultra-high-voltage electricity transmission towers in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, and the construction of a naval base in Jeju both turned into catastrophes after being pushed unilaterally - and in defiance of resident opinions - as state and security efforts, respectively.

So what would happen if a THAAD system is deployed in a certain region of the country? First, it is likely to draw vehement objections from residents. A THAAD system would require land that is both broad and safe. The electromagnetic waves in its AN/TPY-2 radar system could otherwise be implicated in physical or environmental damage.

Data from the US Army indicate that an AN/TPY-2 installation would require an area measuring 281 by 94.5 meters, or roughly four times the size of a football field. An area of 112,396 square-meters around the radar system would need to be fenced off with barbed wire to keep interlopers out.

That’s not all. A safe distance would also have to be enforced to guard against electromagnetic wave effects. Nothing would be allowed within a distance of 5.5 kilometers in the range of 65 degrees to the left and right of the radar’s face.

Current sites where the US has deployed THAAD systems are either in the middle of the desert (in Texas) or on the ocean (Guam, Tsugaru in Japan’s Aomori Prefecture, Kyotango in Kyoto Prefecture). The locations were chosen to ensure a safe distance with 5.5 km of open space to the front.

South Korea doesn’t have the US’s deserts, and radar cannot be positioned toward the sea as in Japan because the North Korean missile bases the THAAD system would ostensibly be guarding against are all to the north. Since the deployment has been presented as a measure against the North Korean nuclear threat rather than a check against China, an AN/TPY-2 system on the Korean Peninsula would need to be facing inland.

Assuming that a THAAD system is positioned in one at the four sites in Pyeongtaek, Daegu, Wonju, or Gijang, the question then is whether local residents would accept clearing everything away from top to bottom in the 5.5 kilometers in front of the THAAD unit. The likely result is an intense conflict over structural height and development limits, plummeting home values and other monetary concerns, and potential physical damages from electromagnetic waves. Indeed, residents in Kyotango, where an AN/TPY-2 radar system was positioned last year, have recently complained of damage from the waves and noise from the radar generator.

The belief of the US military and South Korean government appears to be that the THAAD site issue is theirs to decide, and residents will have to simply go along without objecting. The decision to deploy THAAD as a “security” measure is problematic enough, but the situation becomes much worse when a site is selected behind closed doors and in defiance of resident opinions. Have the lessons of the bloody and costly battles in Gangjeong and Miryang already been forgotten?

By Kwon Hyuk-chul, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]