Calls for S. Korea's nuke armament gaining ground

A Hwasong-10 strategic ballistic missile, also known as the Musudan, is test-fired in this photo released by North Korea's Rodong Sinmun on June 23. Amid growing nuclear and missile threats from Pyongyang, there are some calls for South Korea to pursue nuclear armament. / Yonhap

US analysts warn against going nuclear

By Kang Seung-woo

With North Korea making significant progress with its nuclear program, there are some calls here for South Korea to arm itself with nuclear weapons as part of the country's self-defense against the growing threat.

But American diplomatic pundits say that it is not a good idea saying there would be a high price to pay in many areas, including the ROK-U.S. alliance, while doing little to improve security.

South Korea ratified the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1975 and has remained formally committed to it since then.

Rep. Won Yoo-chul of the ruling Saeuri Party who is a long-term advocate for South Korea's nuclear armament said last Monday the nation should seek a "trigger strategy" that ensures the nation automatically goes nuclear once the North conducts such a test.

"There is a need for a paradigm shift in dealing with the North's provocations including the launch of ballistic missiles," he said.

Won and fellow lawmakers will open a nuclear forum on Aug. 4 to study a detailed action plan.

They will hold a monthly meeting to discuss the development of a South Korean nuclear arsenal. But he has yet to reveal the other participants.

Supporters for nuclear armament claim that nuclear-power status would enable South Korea to secure reliable deterrence by generating a balance of terror with North Korea. They also claim a nuclear armed South Korea can cut its security reliance on the United States and forge a more balanced relationship with both Washington and Beijing.

"Unless South Korea has nuclear weapons for self-defense purposes, it will have to spend more on its conventional military buildup to cope with growing military threats from the North," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute.

Four decades ago, President Park Chung-hee, father of current President Park Geun-hye, considered developing a nuclear capacity because of perceived U.S. disinterest in South Korea's security, but the United States, its military protector, pressed him to drop the program.

According to a Gallup Korea poll conducted in January, 54 percent favored developing nuclear weapons, with 38 percent against.

South Korea's nukes could be ‘self-defeating'

"Developing its own nuclear weapons would require South Korea to withdraw from the NPT and it would likely face international condemnation for leaving the NPT, with possible economic repercussions that could damage its export-dependent economy," said Terence Roehrig, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College.

"Most importantly, South Korea does not need nuclear weapons to improve its security. Deterrence at the strategic level has long been robust and the likelihood of North Korea launching an invasion or some other type of large scale military operation is very unlikely.

"The ROK-U.S. alliance is strong and any North Korean action of this sort would trigger a devastating response by Washington and Seoul that would lead to the end of the regime."

Others agree that the South's pursuit of nuclear weapons will bring about negative consequences for its partnership with the United States ― possibly the end of the ROK-U.S. alliance.

"A nuclear armed South Korea will only intensify growing doubts in the U.S. public about the need for a U.S. troop presence in South Korea and call the alliance into question," said Leon Sigal, the director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York. The United States has about 28,500 service members stationed in South Korea.

"While foreign policy makers may try to assuage those doubts, they may not succeed," he added.

Along with North Korea's fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump also ignited the calls for South Korea's nuclear armament after last month suggesting allowing South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons for self-defense so as to reduce U.S. security commitments to its allies, raising speculation that there may be some talks about the issue in the United States.

However, there are no ongoing discussions about allowing South Korea's nuclear armament there, according to analysts.

"Other than some comments made by Donald Trump in the campaign, there is almost no support in the United States for South Korea to go nuclear," said Roehrig.

Daniel Sneider, associate director of research at Stanford's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, said, "No serious foreign policy or security expert in the United States holds different views ― and the fact that Trump has expressed his support for this is only evidence of his complete ignorance of the basics of national security policy."

In the wake of North Korea's series of military provocations, including the launch of ballistic missiles, calls for the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to the South are re-emerging here ― withdrawn from the peninsula shortly before an inter-Korean denuclearization accord took effect in 1992.

"There have been calls by some in South Korea to have the United States reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons removed or to have South Korea develop a nuclear weapons program. Both are extremely ill-advised ideas," said Bruce Klingner, a senior Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation.

"Currently the United States provides an extended deterrence guarantee through tactical sea-, sub-, and air-based nuclear weapons in the Pacific Theater and strategic nuclear weapons bases in the United States. It makes no military sense to redeploy the tactical nuclear weapons from their hard to find sea, sub, and air platforms and put them into a bunker in South Korea. Doing so would decrease allied deterrence and defense capabilities by increasing the time needed to deploy them and by providing a high value target for North Korea to preemptively attack during times of heightened tension."

According to the Congressional Research Service in April, the renewed calls for the return of nuclear arms to the peninsula reflect concerns that U.S. security guarantees are "fragile."

"The only reason South Korea needs nuclear weapons is if the strategic deterrence provided by the United States, and the extended deterrence offered as well, are no longer considered reliable," said Sneider, who does not believe the U.S. deterrence is in any way less reliable today than it has been in the past.

"But I do agree that there is a perception of a lack of commitment and I think therefore the United States should make it very clear to Pyongyang, in private preferably but if need be, in public, that we will retaliate on a massive scale for any use of nuclear weapons."

Given that a South Korean nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, dangerous, and self-defeating against the North's crude nuclear threats, Peter Hayes, the executive director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, said South Korea had better focus on building up conventional forces.

"South Korea will do much better to develop its conventional force superiority as well as its ability to counter asymmetric capabilities such as cyber warfare and drones," he said.