SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that relations between South Korea and China are strained after Lotte agreed to provide a site for an American THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea's Jeju Province.
Beijing has issued two "solemn representations" to Seoul over the impending deployment, and the People's Daily, a Communist party mouthpiece, said in an editorial that Beijing could potentially sever diplomatic ties.
On Tuesday, after months of negotiations, South Korean retail giant Lotte Group reached a deal to swap land at its Lotte Skyhill Country Club - a lush, mountainous resort in on the southern side of Jeju Island - for a military-owned parcel on the outskirts of Seoul, making way for the missile shield to be placed on the country club site.
That same day, Chinese authorities fined one of Lotte's Beijing supermarkets $US6500 for displaying a "false advertisement" - a vanishingly rare charge in the city, according to the state-run Legal Daily.
South Korean musicians, cosmetics, and television productions have also been subjected to adverse actions by the Chinese government, the article says.
A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry after a meeting with the Assistant Foreign Minister of China said
Both parties emphasised that collective political and diplomatic efforts should be stepped up to ease tensions and initiate the process of military and political detente across the board in Northeast Asia, in order to create conditions conducive to resolving the nuclear issue, as well as other issues, on the Korean Peninsula.
Submitter's comment: I'm puzzled by the choice of a site to the south of the Korean peninsula.
Additional coverage:
- Stars and Stripes
- Xinhua (Chinese government news service)
- RT (supported by Russian government)
- Value Walk
- Reuters
- CNN
- The Korea Herald
- UPI
- Sputnik (supported by Russian government)
further information:
golfshot.com entry for Lotte Sky Hill Jeju Country Club
previous stories:
- South Korea to Receive U.S. Anti-Missile Interceptor System
- G20 Summit Roundup
- Lotte Group Vice Chairman, Facing Corruption Probe, Found Dead in Apparent Suicide
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:50AM (2 children)
The added travel time is not a lot compared to target acquisition and launch time, and it was likely considered that a more distant launch site would be both less aggressive as well as more likely to survive any first strike attempts from North Korea or Terrestrial China (obviously subs with cruise missiles are still a threat, but not in sufficient quantities to destroy the entire facility.)
Additionally a longer travel time means more time for manuevering or if necessary an abort code to keep the missiles from border crossing and causing a potential conflict with NK/CN
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)
Yes, thaad is ballistic missile defense. For those who don't know, a ballistic missile is one that goes up and then "falls" back to earth versus a missile that is powered for its entire flight. It doesn't help to be close to the launch site when defending against ballistic missiles because you hit them on the way down (when their course is determined by gravity and thus reasonably easy to predict).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:47PM
Quite incorrect.
Hitting the missile on the way up is much easier, because it's not going to take wild evasive maneuvers, is pretty soft, and needs to stay intact. The hard part is to catch up with it fast, requiring being close.
On the way down, a long-range ballistic missile is always hypersonic, and launches a dozen independent heads and decoys, each of which are designed to take unpredictable paths to avoid interception, while being spread hundreds of kilometers apart.
The second reason to want anti-ballistic defense close to China is the famous "carrier killers", ballistic medium-range toys which rightfully scare the beejezus out of the guys sailing a giant target near unfriendly waters. Carriers have their strike group to do the ABM job, but multi-layer protection gives better odds.
(Score: 2) by SacredSalt on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:29AM (1 child)
...and they actively fund groups in S. Korea to this effect (similar to our own domestic unrest at moment that is largely funded and organized far from where it happens). The reality is a great number of people in Korea appreciate that an external attack is the most likely event to lead to a forced showdown with N. Korea. North Korea is not exactly cute fuzzy wuzzy puppies and kittens (unless they are eating them). If the VX poisoning of Un's brother didn't convince you, maybe the automation of thousands of upgraded SA-2 missile launchers will.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday March 05 2017, @03:22AM
I'm sure the CCP would like you to believe this ...and they actively fund groups in S. Korea to this effect (similar to our own domestic unrest [...]
The ideas I was trying to convey were:
1. the THAAD plan is progressing: a site has been arranged
2. the site is on an island to the south of the Korean peninsula
3. the Chinese and Russian governments reiterated their opposition to THAAD
4. the Chinese government has been taking actions against South Korean travellers and businesses
5. those actions are said to be connected to China's opposition to THAAD
I don't think you mean that the Chinese secretly favour THAAD; nor do you seem to be disputing the connection between that and the denied visas etc. You seem to be commenting about something else. Care to clarify?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:38PM (2 children)
This might be about protecting Japan from China. The USA is involved in protecting both, so missiles in one to protect the other is reasonable.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:28AM (1 child)
You're probably right. The story calls the THAAD plans "a long-envisioned response to North Korea's repeated missile tests and threats to attack South Korea, Japan and the United States." As you say, the Jeju site does look well-placed to protect Japan from North Korean missiles.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:07AM
Well, maybe a little bit, but mostly China. This is why China is annoyed. They might even actually know due to spying.
We'd want to protect Japan and our aircraft carriers. Perhaps there is some protection for South Korea being attacked by somebody, but not likely much. This isn't about them, at least not mostly.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday March 07 2017, @08:47AM
I just looked at two other articles about the Lotte site:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170227001006 [koreaherald.com]
http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Po_detail.htm?No=125628 [kbs.co.kr]
They both say that the golf course is in Seongju County; one says that that is in North Gyeongsang Province. I think the Sydney Morning Herald may be in error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Gyeongsang_Province [wikipedia.org]