Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#21

Post by dredmorbius »

energy123 wrote: post #15
Animats wrote: post #6

Other countries with rising weapons businesses are Ukraine and Iran. The best endorsement for a weapons manufacturer is winning a war against a tough opponent.

The US, Russia and China all took turns losing wars to Afghanistan and Vietnam but nobody lines up to buy weapons from them because strategic victory (denying the enemy their war objectives) due to a lack of political will in the opponent or superior geography isn't the same thing as tactical victory due to better weapons.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't beat their adversaries through advanced military technology, but by the shear capacity to absorb unholy amounts of damage and injury. Arguably Iran is in a similar position, though its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles did prove capable of reaching out and touching others within the theatre (1,000 -- 2,000 km range), and that these systems were resilient against attempts by its adversaries to destroy both stocks and launchers.

Ukraine is the odd one out in that it has developed significant technological capabilities, largely with drones and anti-drone defences, and has active buyers for that tech.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#22

Post by epistasis »

tristanj wrote: post #10

This article uses so many words to focus on the political reasons, but completely ignores the primary driver: Cost. Korean weapons systems are 40-60% cheaper than their American counterparts. The Korean K9 Thunder 155mm self-propelled howitzer costs $3.5 to $4 million per unit. For comparison, the American M109A7 Paladin costs around $8 million. The German PzH 2000 runs approximately $7 to $8 million. The K239 Chunmo…

This is also the case for things like nuclear reactor construction, except South Korea is cheaper by a far higher margin there.

Add in the US's latest antics about controlling the use of they weapons they sell, and in addition trying to bully and demean allies, and it's a mystery as to why anybody would ever use US suppliers these days.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#23

Post by epistasis »

dredmorbius wrote: post #21
energy123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US, Russia and China all took turns losing wars to Afghanistan and Vietnam but nobody lines up to buy weapons from them because strategic victory (denying the enemy their war objectives) due to a lack of political will in the opponent or superior geography isn't the same thing as tactical victory due to better weapons.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't beat their adversaries through advanced military technology, but by the shear capacity to absorb unholy amounts of damage and injury. Arguably Iran is in a similar position, though its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles did prove capable of reaching out and touching others within the theatre (1,000 -- 2,000 km range), and that these systems were resilient against attempts by its adver…

Iran did supply Russia with Shaheds long before the current US attack on Iran, so they were at the fore front of drone technology (though if I recall correctly the design had evolved through time over adoption from other countries, perhaps originating in Germany?)

Which makes the US refusal to interact with, learn from, or adopt Ukrainian tech all the more frustrating. There are 13 US fighters that would likely still be alive today, if the current US establishment was t so irrational in their hate of Ukraine, and had adopted anti drove tactics common in Ukraine, including the P1-SUN interceptors that could have taken out the shaheds. Losing an AWACS is an embarrassment beyond words, honestly. Best thing would not have been to start a stupid unwinnable war without any clear objectives.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#24

Post by mohamedkoubaa »

ReptileMan wrote: post #19
tristanj wrote: post #10

This article uses so many words to focus on the political reasons, but completely ignores the primary driver: Cost. Korean weapons systems are 40-60% cheaper than their American counterparts. The Korean K9 Thunder 155mm self-propelled howitzer costs $3.5 to $4 million per unit. For comparison, the American M109A7 Paladin costs around $8 million. The German PzH 2000 runs approximately $7 to $8 million. The K239 Chunmo…

The majority of military hardware costs are bribes, kickbacks and margins. Nobody thinks that they will fight a real war in which they will need a lot of hardware. If the US or Germany get in situation they need thousands of those - I guess their cost will fall to under 1M.

If the US is ever in that situation again we won't be measuring cost of any manufacturable thing in dollars

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#25

Post by Tsiklon »

Poland I imagine is a tremendous exponent of South Korea’s arms industry.

I always thought of arms procurement as a tedious and slow process but the Polish/Korean agreements have turned that on its head in my eyes.

Simultaneously supplying new tanks, artillery, and munitions, while quickly standing up local factories to build them in Poland too is impressive, undoubtedly giving the Polish government some well needed breathing room.

Given that the technical package is included here, there must be some form of non-competition clause

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#26

Post by joe_mamba »

dredmorbius wrote: post #20
tristanj wrote: post #10

This article uses so many words to focus on the political reasons, but completely ignores the primary driver: Cost. Korean weapons systems are 40-60% cheaper than their American counterparts. The Korean K9 Thunder 155mm self-propelled howitzer costs $3.5 to $4 million per unit. For comparison, the American M109A7 Paladin costs around $8 million. The German PzH 2000 runs approximately $7 to $8 million. The K239 Chunmo…

Cost is a factor, and a significant factor, but not the only one. Flip-side of cost is effectiveness , and it would be interesting to see real-world data on the accuracy, reliability, and longevity of Korean weapons systems in active combat. I suspect the Koreans are also anxious to see this given their own geopolitical situation and northern neighbour. The article doesn't go here either. It does, correctly IMO, focu…

>Cost is a factor, and a significant factor, but not the only one.

The REAL significant factor is that Korean arms companies are not just sealing weapons, but also willing to sell IP to their allies for you to manufacture their weapons domestically, something very rare in the arms business.

It's why Poland chose to license and manufacture Korean weapons domestically rather than buy superior weapon systems from their EU and NATO allies and neighbors France and Germany, since those two typically only sell weapons but never IP, as they see IP as valuable trade secrets and leverage.

Sovereign supply chain and manufacturing for arms is more important for your national security than price and having the most bleeding edge systems if those imported systems can be withheld against you if your ally wants to squeeze something out of you at some point in the future over petty political squabbles, and Poland has less chances of having beef with Korea on the other side of the planet than with neighboring France and Germany. So it's the most sane decision politically. A lot of countries got bit by this dependence that it's a valuable lesson every country should heethe.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#27

Post by energy123 »

epistasis wrote: post #23
dredmorbius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't beat their adversaries through advanced military technology, but by the shear capacity to absorb unholy amounts of damage and injury. Arguably Iran is in a similar position, though its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles did prove capable of reaching out and touching others within the theatre (1,000 -- 2,000 km range), and that these systems were resilient against attempts by its adver…

Iran did supply Russia with Shaheds long before the current US attack on Iran, so they were at the fore front of drone technology (though if I recall correctly the design had evolved through time over adoption from other countries, perhaps originating in Germany?) Which makes the US refusal to interact with, learn from, or adopt Ukrainian tech all the more frustrating. There are 13 US fighters that would likely still…

> Iran were at the forefront of drone technology.

Only one-way attack drones which are the lowest tech type of drones. ISR drones are much higher on the tech tree, and Iran aren't in the FPV drone game due to a lack of need for them.

That having been said, I couldn't agree more with your frustration around refusing to collaborate with and learn from Ukraine when it comes to Shaheds.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#28

Post by Lucasoato »

dredmorbius wrote: post #12
tartoran wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what your point really is. Yes Korea has been already selling arms, but as of recently, they stepped up drastically. This is what this article is about. Is the title wrong? That’s an issue with most titles these days

The original title, before dang corrected it (See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48611464 >), was "The Surprising New Arms Dealer to the World". Which teases unnecessarily and uses several words to not reveal the actual country involved. HN mods chose to employ my suggested title, which follows from HN guidelines and practices: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32949870 > and https://news.ycombinator.com/ne…

This was a good suggestion, removing clickbait titles that hide information to readers should be a standard in online news as well. Sadly, they don’t have their dang there yet.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#29

Post by dredmorbius »

epistasis wrote: post #23
dredmorbius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't beat their adversaries through advanced military technology, but by the shear capacity to absorb unholy amounts of damage and injury. Arguably Iran is in a similar position, though its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles did prove capable of reaching out and touching others within the theatre (1,000 -- 2,000 km range), and that these systems were resilient against attempts by its adver…

Iran did supply Russia with Shaheds long before the current US attack on Iran, so they were at the fore front of drone technology (though if I recall correctly the design had evolved through time over adoption from other countries, perhaps originating in Germany?) Which makes the US refusal to interact with, learn from, or adopt Ukrainian tech all the more frustrating. There are 13 US fighters that would likely still…

True, though Iran wasn't facing a hot war of aggression prior to the Twelve Day War (June 2025), which was the premise I was specifically addressing.

Iran's successes in the 2025 and 2026 conflicts would be within that premise.

Prior to 2025, and dating back to the mid-1980s, Iran and Israel have been engaged in a proxy conflict, but that also differs from the premise. In large part that's relied on the ability to inflict some pain on counterparties, but not necessarily by exhibiting technological superiority, and not to decisive effect on the part of either Iran or Israel for that matter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...>.

Rational thought processes and the current US administration aren't even worth mention, though I'll suggest that the failure of what were once thought to be at least partially resistant institutions such as the military establishment against executive idiocy is especially disheartening.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#30

Post by tokai »

jonnybgood wrote: post #9
Animats wrote: post #6

Other countries with rising weapons businesses are Ukraine and Iran. The best endorsement for a weapons manufacturer is winning a war against a tough opponent.

It’s just Russia using Iranian drones, but that was already happening. This war with Iran is not really an endorsement of Iranian weapons. The US didn’t stop its offensive because of Iranian weapons. We already knew the effectiveness of one way attack drones just from looking at their employment in Ukraine. The US counter-UAV industry might start seeing some exponential growth. There’s a lot of lessons learned for th…

Russia hasn't used Iranian drones for some years now. They got their own production running and have even shipped drones to Iran.
Post reply on HN