A recent accident at Hanwha Aerospace’s Daejeon plant left seven people dead or injured, bringing deep sorrow to bereaved families and colleagues as well as society at large. It was not the first explosion at the site. Three similar accidents have occurred in succession over eight years—in 2018, 2019, and this year. That is why Hanwha Aerospace cannot escape sharp criticism over its safety management responsibilities.
The defense industry handles explosives, missiles, and launch vehicles, carrying a structural risk in which even a 0.1% margin of error can lead to massive loss of life. Last October, a large-scale chain explosion at a military explosives manufacturing process (AES) in Tennessee, United States, claimed 16 lives in a major disaster. This shows that even the United States, which possesses world-class defense technology and infrastructure, is not free from the physical dangers of explosives.
The defense industry inevitably bears the burden of structural risk and the negative image of producing weapons of war, making it a field many companies avoid. General Electric (GE) of the United States, which once spanned home appliances, finance, and defense businesses, sold its defense division to Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) during its restructuring in the 1990s due to this burden. A similar reason lay behind Samsung Group’s 2015 sale of Samsung Techwin to Hanwha.
Still, the defense industry is a strategic sector directly tied to national security and a key driver supporting economic growth—an industry that must be protected. Through its defense competitiveness, Korea is expanding its influence not only in the Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S.-China conflict is acute, but also in the Middle East and Europe, where geopolitical risks are high. Moreover, defense technology is a critical factor that will determine capabilities in the space industry, which will become the stage for future hegemonic competition.
That is why what is needed now goes beyond criticism: proper measures and actions to prevent safety accidents from recurring. Given the nature of private defense companies, safety conditions that have been hidden behind a veil of security must now be examined jointly by the state and the government.
The government must prepare comprehensive measures reflecting the special characteristics of defense manufacturing processes and re-establish regulations and safety guidelines in line with global standards. Companies, too, must adopt an attitude that prioritizes investment in safety infrastructure above all else. The presence of K-Defense becomes complete only when safe worksites support it, as much as the power of its weapons.
