Will S. Korea, Japan and even Taiwan go nuclear in the next ten years? Stay tuned...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/as-north-korea-blusters-south-breaks-taboo-on-nuclear-talk.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
QuoteSouth Korea Flirts With Nuclear Ideas as North Blusters
By MARTIN FACKLER and CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: March 10, 2013 89 Comments
SEOUL, South Korea — As their country prospered, South Koreans have largely shrugged off the constant threat of a North Korean attack. But breakthroughs in the North's missile and nuclear programs and fiery threats of war have heightened fears in the South that even small miscalculations by the new and untested leaders of each country could have disastrous consequences.
Now this new sense of vulnerability is causing some influential South Koreans to break a decades-old taboo by openly calling for the South to develop its own nuclear arsenal, a move that would raise the stakes in what is already one of the world's most militarized regions.
While few here think this will happen anytime soon, two recent opinion polls show that two-thirds of South Koreans support the idea posed by a small but growing number of politicians and columnists — a reflection, analysts say, of hardening attitudes since North Korea's Feb. 12 underground nuclear test, its third since 2006.
"The third nuclear test was for South Korea what the Cuban missile crisis was for the U.S.," said Han Yong-sup, a professor of security policy at the Korea National Defense University in Seoul. "It has made the North Korean threat seem very close and very real."
In recent weeks, the North has approached a crucial threshold with its weapons programs, with the successful launching of a long-range rocket, followed by the test detonation of a nuclear device that could be small enough to fit on top of a rocket. Those advances were followed by a barrage of apocalyptic threats to rain "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" and "final destruction" on Seoul, the South's neon-drenched capital. The intensification of North Korea's typically bellicose language shocked many South Koreans, who had thought the main target of the North's nuclear program was the United States.
Adding to South Koreans' worries, the North and its nuclear arsenal are in the hands of a young new leader, Kim Jong-un, whose brinkmanship appears to be an effort to ensure the support of his nation's powerful military.
The South also has a new president, Park Geun-hye, the daughter of a military strongman who stood firm against North Korea, who herself also faces pressure to stand fast against the North. Just two weeks after her inauguration, Ms. Park faces a crisis as the North makes vague threats interpreted by many South Koreans as the precursor to some sort of limited, conventional military provocation. Ms. Park has promised to retaliate if her nation is attacked, aware of the public anger directed at her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak, when he showed restraint after the North shelled a South Korean island in 2010, killing four people.
That kind of limited skirmish is more likely than a nuclear attack, but such an episode could quickly inflame tensions and escalate out of control. Over the years, North Korea has sent armed spies across the border, dug invasion tunnels under it and infiltrated South Korean waters with submarines.
But beyond the immediate fear of a military provocation, analysts say deeper anxieties are also at work in the South. One of the biggest is the creeping resurgence of old fears about the reliability of this nation's longtime protector, the United States. Experts say the talk of South Korea's acquiring nuclear weapons is an oblique way to voice the concerns of a small but growing number of South Koreans that the United States, either because of budget cuts or a lack of will, may one day no longer act as the South's ultimate insurance policy.
"The Americans don't feel the North Korean nuclear weapons as a direct threat," said Chung Mong-joon, a son of the founder of the Hyundai industrial group and the former leader of the governing party, who has been the leading proponent of South Korea's development of a nuclear weapons program. "At a time of crisis, we are not 100 percent sure whether the Americans will cover us with its nuclear umbrella."
The United States, which still has 28,500 troops based in South Korea, has sought to assure its ally that it remains committed to the region as part of the Obama administration's strategic "pivot" to Asia. But analysts say the fact that senior leaders like Mr. Chung and a handful of influential newspaper columnists now call for the need for "nuclear deterrence," or at least hint at it, reflects widespread frustrations over the inability of the United States and other nations to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Until recently the idea was too radical for most mainstream leaders and opinion makers, including both deeply pro-American conservatives and nationalistic yet antinuclear liberals.
Advocacy for a nuclear-armed South Korea has been virtually taboo since the early 1970s, when the country's military dictator, Park Chung-hee, made a serious bid to develop a nuclear weapon, fearing that the United States might pull out of Asia after its defeat in Vietnam. After catching wind of the program, Washington forced Mr. Park, the new president's father, to stop, persuading him instead to rely on the United States, an agreement that has held ever since.
Mr. Chung and others say that if the United States does not allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear arms, it should at least restore the nuclear balance on the Korean Peninsula by reintroducing American atomic weapons, which were removed from bases in the South in 1991 in a post-cold-war effort to reduce tensions.
Many in the South are now convinced that the North may never give up its nuclear weapons. The South's new level of anxiety is also apparent in the widespread speculation here about when and where the North might carry out another, non-nuclear military provocation.
North Korea has stoked those fears by saying that on Monday it will drop out of the 60-year-old armistice that ended the Korean War, in a show of anger at new United Nations sanctions for its nuclear test. North Korea has threatened to terminate the armistice in the past, but the greater worry now is that it might take actions to contravene it. There have been cryptic warnings in North Korea's state-run news media of coming "counteractions," which have led South Korean officials to warn of an episode like the bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010.
On Friday, North Korea's state-run television showed Mr. Kim addressing the same artillery units that hit Yeonpyeong. On the same day, South Korean television stations showed President Park with heavily decorated generals, and later descending into the bunker at the Blue House, South Korea's version of the White House, to confer with her national security advisers.
The opposition parties had blocked the confirmation of her cabinet, raising concerns about her ability to respond to a crisis, but she reached a deal allowing her to fill crucial posts on Monday. Even many on the left said that the country would quickly pull together if shots were fired.
"The third test was a wake-up call for the left, too," said Lee Kang-yun, a television commentator.
On the streets of Seoul, it has remained business as usual with no signs of panic, a testimony to the resilience, or perhaps resignation, of a people who have grown used to the North's threats.
Chung Eun-jin, a 26-year-old English teacher interviewed in the trendy Gangnam district, said she was not overly concerned because the North had threatened the South so often before. But Kwon Gi-yoon, 38, an engineer, said that since the North's third test, he believed that South Korea should develop its own nuclear weapons.
Opinions like Mr. Kwon's appear to be spreading. Two opinion polls conducted after the third test, one by Gallup Korea and the other by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, found that 64 to 66.5 percent of the respondents supported the idea that South Korea should develop its own nuclear weapons, similar to polls after the Yeonpyeong attack in 2010.
"Having a nuclear North Korea is like facing a person holding a gun with just your bare hands," said Mr. Kwon, the engineer. South Koreans should have "our own nuclear capabilities, in case the U.S. pulls out like it did in Vietnam."
Su Hyun Lee contributed reporting.
No.
There's enough of an uproar in Japan over potentially switching back on nuclear power plants let alone nuclear weapons.
Don't see why South Korea could possibly need nuclear weapons either.
Taiwan is the only country which could have a need....but relations with China are going pretty well at the moment.
Quote from: Tyr on March 13, 2013, 09:16:08 PM
No.
There's enough of an uproar in Japan over potentially switching back on nuclear power plants let alone nuclear weapons.
Don't see why South Korea could possibly need nuclear weapons either.
Taiwan is the only country which could have a need....but relations with China are going pretty well at the moment.
Some S.Koreans argue they need nukes as a deterrent against the North, and also because some believe the US may not protect them if push comes to shove.
Quote from: Tyr on March 13, 2013, 09:16:08 PM
Don't see why South Korea could possibly need nuclear weapons either.
I suggest you read the article Tim posted.
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2013, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 13, 2013, 09:16:08 PM
Don't see why South Korea could possibly need nuclear weapons either.
I suggest you read the article Tim posted.
:yeahright:
It doesn't give a valid reason.
Quote from: Tyr on March 13, 2013, 11:34:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 13, 2013, 11:21:53 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 13, 2013, 09:16:08 PM
Don't see why South Korea could possibly need nuclear weapons either.
I suggest you read the article Tim posted.
:yeahright:
It doesn't give a valid reason.
How are the reasons given in the article not "valid"? It's quite understandable to me, and for that matter, to perhaps 2/3 of South Koreans.
The South Korea-North Korea situation is less comparable to the cold war and more akin to a hostage situation.
There's no doubt if things went hot that the North would go down (with or without the US), the fear is that they could do a lot of damage to both the South and to a (much) lesser extent their own people in the process.
In a hostage situation if the hostage taker says "OK, we've got a bomb that can irradiate a city block" then oh fuck, that could be rather scary, but the police threatening back that they have a bomb of their own wouldn't really help.
Even assuming a complete disregard for northern lives by the South, nuking Pyongyang wouldn't help them to win the war let alone the peace, it would just entrench the North's die hard even more.
I'm not sure you understand the cold war very well.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
I'm not sure you understand the cold war very well.
Howso?
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2013, 01:29:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
I'm not sure you understand the cold war very well.
Howso?
I'm guessing that he means that the nuclear strategy the US settled on was Mutual Assured Destruction. Though a basic premise of that was that while the Soviet leadership might be evil, they weren't insane. It's not clear that applies with North Korea.
Quote from: Tyr on March 14, 2013, 01:29:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 01:04:30 AM
I'm not sure you understand the cold war very well.
Howso?
The cold war had some of the same hostage dynamics. Early on, the US could essentially flatten the Soviet Union and suffer little in the way of retaliation.
Anyway, S.Korea making a bomb is not something that China wants, and so gives them a motive to reign N. Korea in. For that to work S. Korea, must be willing to show it's prepared to actually do this. If China is willing to allow a nuclear North Korea then it's should be prepared for nuclear proliferation across East Asia. It's brinkmanship. Nobody wants this nuclear proliferation in East Asia but a credible threat must be made to prevent it from happening. A S. Korean bomb is part of that credible threat.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 02:03:37 AM
Anyway, S.Korea making a bomb is not something that China wants, and so gives them a motive to reign N. Korea in. For that to work S. Korea, must be willing to show it's prepared to actually do this. If China is willing to allow a nuclear North Korea then it's should be prepared for nuclear proliferation across East Asia.
I don't think China cares as much as you think it does.
Please have a cyber arms race. :yes:
Squeeze's argument is not totally without merit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 02:03:37 AM
Anyway, S.Korea making a bomb is not something that China wants, and so gives them a motive to reign N. Korea in. For that to work S. Korea, must be willing to show it's prepared to actually do this. If China is willing to allow a nuclear North Korea then it's should be prepared for nuclear proliferation across East Asia.
I don't think China cares as much as you think it does.
They'd shit a brick if Japan, the Philippines or Vietnam got nukes. Not to mention Taiwan.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
Will S. Korea, Japan and even Taiwan go nuclear in the next ten years?
No.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
They'd shit a brick if Japan, the Philippines or Vietnam got nukes. Not to mention Taiwan.
I know you're probably riffing off that contested islands bit, but not sure why China would be worried about Philippines so much.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 02:03:37 AM
Anyway, S.Korea making a bomb is not something that China wants, and so gives them a motive to reign N. Korea in. For that to work S. Korea, must be willing to show it's prepared to actually do this. If China is willing to allow a nuclear North Korea then it's should be prepared for nuclear proliferation across East Asia.
I don't think China cares as much as you think it does.
They'd shit a brick if Japan, the Philippines or Vietnam got nukes. Not to mention Taiwan.
The Chinese are only mildly interested in reigning in North Korea, and only to the degree that it impacts them; to them, the value of NK giving the US and the regional actors geopolitical problems fits in well with deflecting attention from Beijing. It works for them very well.
You can't work sweatshop machinery with nuclear arms :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 07:24:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 14, 2013, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2013, 02:03:37 AM
Anyway, S.Korea making a bomb is not something that China wants, and so gives them a motive to reign N. Korea in. For that to work S. Korea, must be willing to show it's prepared to actually do this. If China is willing to allow a nuclear North Korea then it's should be prepared for nuclear proliferation across East Asia.
I don't think China cares as much as you think it does.
They'd shit a brick if Japan, the Philippines or Vietnam got nukes. Not to mention Taiwan.
The Chinese are only mildly interested in reigning in North Korea, and only to the degree that it impacts them; to them, the value of NK giving the US and the regional actors geopolitical problems fits in well with deflecting attention from Beijing. It works for them very well.
That's the point of raising the specter of a nuclear S. Korea, Japan, or Philippines. That would make them care. Like the Germans and Russians before them, the Chinese are paranoid about the idea of "encirclement". A ring of nuclear weapon states in the pacific rim would make them very, very unhappy.
Not that they'd do anything about it. And no, none of those nations would go nuclear. The US would have to come right out and abrogate a an established and ironclad defense policy second only to NATO. So it ain't fucking happening.
So stop fapping over it. You're just encouraging Timmayism.
When did you become such a defeatist?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Squeeze's argument is not totally without merit.
It fails though in that the North Korean state isn't a bunch of fanatical terrorists, but rather a state with its own entrenched elite interested in preserving power.
Also in this calculus are a variety of other states (China, USA) whose involvement in the situation isn't clear, and thus getting the bomb would give the South additional leverage no matter what scenario might develop. So a police squad saying they've got a bomb of their own might not be terribly useful in Josq's scenario, but a police squad able to counter the threat would - which is just what developing nukes would be, at least in the eyes of many South Koreans.
However, ultimately I don't think it will happen.
I don't see China freaking out if it's SK or Japan nuking up. You have to think they'd look at Taiwan building them without their "permission" as a major loss of face.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 14, 2013, 08:44:06 PM
You have to think they'd look at Taiwan building them without their "permission" as a major loss of face.
Perhaps; but that island can't even get its own independence straightened out, nukes are so much farther down the road as a concept.
I can see it - just like their parliament, the nuclear scientists from Taiwan getting into fistfights over design issues.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 14, 2013, 08:37:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Squeeze's argument is not totally without merit.
It fails though in that the North Korean state isn't a bunch of fanatical terrorists, but rather a state with its own entrenched elite interested in preserving power.
Also in this calculus are a variety of other states (China, USA) whose involvement in the situation isn't clear, and thus getting the bomb would give the South additional leverage no matter what scenario might develop. So a police squad saying they've got a bomb of their own might not be terribly useful in Josq's scenario, but a police squad able to counter the threat would - which is just what developing nukes would be, at least in the eyes of many South Koreans.
However, ultimately I don't think it will happen.
They have no chance of winning a full conventional war however. North Korean military doctrine recognises this and their tactics in the case of another Korean war will be to try and overrun Seoul before the US and the South can properly react. With this hostage they will then try to bring the South/the US to the negotating table.
I expect that the analogy of a hostage situation will actually be very very apt indeed if it came down to it, North Korea lacks the ability to fire a nuclear bomb at a target with any degree of accuracy, their best use of any nuke they may or may not have would be to physically plant it in Seoul and threaten to flip the switch unless the fighting stops.
The South already has the ability to utterly destroy the northern regime and it has no interest in killing large numbers of northern people- that wouldn't bother the northern government half as much as it would the developed world. The South already has the upper hand, it doesn't need nuclear weapons.
The only potential window is if the US decides it is no longer interested in Asia and China suddenly backtracks its worldview by a few decades and decides it wants Korea united under the North. In that situation South Korea might have to seriously defend its existence and nuclear weapons would be a deterrant. But that's a big what if. These days China seems pretty happy with a divided Korea and if it had to have a united Korea it finds the South a much better business partner. If there was no American military presence there then China would be even more pro-South.
In a second Korean War scenario China is more likely to intervene against the North than in its defence. The only potential worry, the likelyhood of which I don't know, is that China may decide to move in to occupy part of the north and refuse to leave.
:hmm:
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/6370/crazy-korea-story
QuoteCrazy Korea Story
By Jeffrey | 14 March 2013 | 40 Comments
Several of my colleagues have been scratching their heads over a bizarre story that appeared in the Joongang Ilbo ("U.S. nukes to remain in South, To deter a North attack, weapons to stay after joint drills, possibly on sub") that attributed a number of odd statements about U.S. nuclear weapons to a "high-ranking South Korean government official."
Maybe Madame Park likes to drink?
I am not sure I have any special insight into WTF this official is talking about, but here is some text to accompany the sounds of itching skulls.
Let's start with the oddest statements from the story — emphasis mine throughout — and then I'll make some observations in no particular order.
Quote
After two Korea-U.S. joint military drills end, American vessels equipped with nuclear weapons will stay in South Korean waters to fully guarantee the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" in case North Korea attacks.
A high-ranking South Korean government official told the JoongAng Ilbo yesterday, "If North Korea makes a nuclear attack, retaliation can come from U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in Okinawa or Guam. But considering the time that might take, we need to have a nuclear weapon near the Korean Peninsula.
"By not withdrawing U.S. weapons participating in the Korea-U.S. military exercises, we decided to let them stay a while and see what happens in North Korea," he said.
...
"We decided to convene another Korea-U.S. submarine drill after the Foal Eagle training ends at the end of April," the official told the JoongAng Ilbo. "We are still negotiating [with Washington] how to utilize the nuclear weapons after then."
The official did not specify which warships would remain behind with nuclear weapons.
Sources in the South Korean military told the JoongAng Ilbo that a nuclear-armed submarine is a strong candidate.
"Since the third nuclear test by North Korea in February, there have been calls for us to possess anuclear weapon," a South Korean military official said. "Among various options – our own development, adoption of tactical nuclear weapons and utilizing the U.S. nuclear umbrella – the third is the most realistic."
OK, let's start.
First, I think the South Korean official is attempting to convey that a US nuclear submarine of one sort or another is participating in the ongoing Foal Eagle/Key Resolve exercises. Now, is this submarine nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable? The wording "equipped with nuclear weapons" is unambiguous, but perhaps something got lost in the translation.
1. It is possible that exercise includes a nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). The United States does, in fact, have nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines participate in exercises, although I have not heard of one participating in a multinational exercise. There has been some chatter about resuming port calls of nuclear-armed SSBNs in South Korea, something that happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s when extended deterrence was rocky. (Pictured above, maybe, according to Hans.) Maybe this is a step in that direction.
2. It is also possible that the exercise includes a converted ballistic missile submarine that does not carry nuclear weapons. The USS Ohio, a nuclear ballistic missile submarine the Navy converted to a carry conventional guided missiles, participated in Key Resolve/Foal Eagle 2009. The South Koreans enjoyed using it as a press backdrop. While an SSGN is not nuclear-armed, it is indistinguishable from the real article to my eye. The confusion is understandable and, in fact, might be a benefit.
3. Finally, it is possible that a Los Angeles-class attack submarine, like the USS Bremerton, is participating. Some Los Angeles-class attack submarines, including the USS Bremerton, can carry the TLAM/N — the nuclear-armed Tomahawk. The United States has not deployed TLAM/N on any attack submarines since early 1992, following the September 1991 President's Nuclear Initiative. The airframes and warheads have been in storage. The Navy did not plan a replacement system, leaving the Obama Administration to allow the retirement of the TLAM/N to proceed without replacement. In April 2010, Jim Miller testified that the timeline for the retirement of the TLAM/N was over the "next two to three years." I would be surprised if there were any residual TLAM/N capability at this point, but I can't rule it out and the South Koreans may simply be none the wiser.
We might get additional clarity over the next few weeks. When a submarine returns home, there is often a little item in the local press that contains some operational information. Maybe some sailor will be indiscreet on a message board.
Second, the whole idea that U.S. nuclear weapons need to be stationed in "Korean waters" is ridiculous.
1. As far as I know, there are no nuclear weapons stationed in Okinawa or Guam, nor any facilities to accommodate nuclear weapons. The Administration does talk about the ability to forward-deploy B-2 bombers to Guam as a symbol of extended deterrence, but I think this is a silly symbol. As I have noted before, "Nor would the United States forward deploy nuclear-armed B-2s, either in Guam or elsewhere. The B-2 can reach targets from North Korea to Iran directly from Missouri, which is what the United States did in the early stages of operations against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The only rationale for forward-basing is to permit more sorties – something of interest only in ongoing conventional operations." Nuclear death and destruction visited upon North Korea will probably come with a 65336 postal code.
2. The flight-time argument is impenetrable to me. Setting aside what difference minutes or hours might make in various nuclear-use scenarios, the flight time for a nuclear-armed ballistic missile is minutes. Putting an SSBN closer to Korea isn't really necessary and is, in fact, undesirable for any number of reasons. As for the TLAM/N, among the undesirable properties that persuaded the Navy to part with that system, one drawback is the relatively long flight time to target, which is to say nothing of the tendency to crash en route. There just is not, as far as I can tell, any military reason to have a nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine leave its Pacific patrol grounds to hang out around Dokdo.
Third, and finally, this episode illustrates my pet peeve about extended deterrence. We don't do ourselves any favors by attempting to reassure our allies with false promises. The effort to reassure South Korea through our ability to forward deploy B-2 bombers in Guam — something we wouldn't do for nuclear-use scenarios — simply reinforces misconceptions that exist in Seoul about the nature of extended deterrence. The whole Guam nonsense leaves unaddressed the inaccurate belief on the part of many South Koreans that extended deterrence functions better if there are weapons "close by."
These misconceptions hamper relations — now we have to turn down a South Korean request to keep a nuclear-armed submarine lurking in the East Sea/Sea of Japan — and over time will undermine the credibility of our commitment. I have been hopeful that new mechanisms like the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee might allow consultations to reduce our tendency to use obsolete hardware as a symbol of our commitment.
That might still happen, but its clear we aren't there yet.
Remember the good old days when people used to protest the presence of our nukes? :P
http://freebeacon.com/practice-run/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYgb6BVw.jpg&hash=6413b5aa2c74a0d8019225900c277454814ff2c3)
Hack Attack! :ph34r:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/20/world/asia/south-korea-computer-outage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
QuoteComputer outage in South Korea hits broadcasters and bank
By K.J. Kwon, CNN
March 20, 2013 -- Updated 0735 GMT (1535 HKT)
Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korean police said Wednesday they are investigating a computer outage that has struck systems at leading television broadcasters and banks, prompting the military to step up its cyber alert level amid concerns about North Korea.
One television station, YTN, reported that 500 of its computers had been disabled by the outage. Another, KBS, said that its internal networks had been "paralyzed," but that the problem didn't prevent it from broadcasting live.
A third broadcaster, MBC, was also reportedly experiencing problems.
Customers of Shinhan Bank are unable to log into the lender's website at the moment, the company said in a statement.
A second lender, Nonghyup Bank, said that it had disconnected some of its computers after they were infected with a virus. The bank said its main server was still functioning and able to carry out Internet transactions.
Police didn't immediately provide a reason for the server problems.
The South Korean defense ministry said it had upgraded its information operations condition, or INFOCON, one notch to level 3 in response to the outages. Level 1 is the highest on the scale, which gauges the perceived likelihood of a network attack.
The ministry said it couldn't say whether North Korea, which has made a number of recent threats against South Korea and the United States, was behind the computer problems.
The defense ministry said it had already increased the alert level last month in response to North Korean threats.
The South Korean government has set up a cyber crisis management team, bringing together civilian, government and military officials, said Kim Haing, a spokeswoman for the South Korean president's office.