Nuclear option best kept in escrow for now
The call for nuclear armament in response to North Korea's growing asymmetric threat is raising its head again. Defense Minister Song Young-moon told the National Assembly it wouldn't be difficult to develop a nuclear arsenal, adding that no plan in that regard was being pondered.
If the North conducts its sixth nuclear test, predicted as the next step in its effort to make a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile that can hit the United States, the call for the development of our own nukes will go up many times louder.
Those calls will likely put pressure on the government to revisit the issue, which gained much traction in the public arena during the late stages of the previous administration. But then it was pretty much agreed that developing our own nuclear weapons was too costly. The alternative is to reintroduce U.S. tactical nuclear weapons onto the Korean Peninsula. U.S. tactical nukes were withdrawn in the early 1990s. That too is not a good idea for now.
First, tactical nukes are for battlefield use, while strategic ones are for destruction of cities and industrial complexes. Even considering the limited size of the theater on the peninsula, tactical nuclear weapons deployment is comparable to trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Then, it would anger China. The level of absurdity China is displaying in response to our decision to deploy the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor would go up many times, if we bring in U.S. tactical nuclear weapons.
Proponents would say it is our territory and our lives at stake, suggesting snubbing Beijing's indignant opposition. But succumbing to such a temptation would likely be more endangering than the nuclear-armed North.
The South may face a major disruption in trade caused by its biggest trading partner. That will likely not be the only precursor of what's to come. The real risk is that Korea is pulled into the crosshairs of a hegemonic battle between the United States and China or a flashpoint for a Third World War. It can't be ruled out that not just the North but also China is pointing their nuclear weapons at the southern part of the Korean Peninsula.
In that revival of the Cold War structure with a twist, our self-determination would be gone, while big powers plus the North would decide on affairs affecting our fate. For that reason alone, it is not clear the U.S. would agree to our request, if it is made. Then, a U.S. rejection could cause a rift in the two countries' alliance as Seoul would be up in arms for its own nuclear armament.
So there are good reasons not to make haste in pursuit of instant satisfaction from trying to bring in tactical nuclear weapons. We should act on them.
The call for nuclear armament in response to North Korea's growing asymmetric threat is raising its head again. Defense Minister Song Young-moon told the National Assembly it wouldn't be difficult to develop a nuclear arsenal, adding that no plan in that regard was being pondered.
If the North conducts its sixth nuclear test, predicted as the next step in its effort to make a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile that can hit the United States, the call for the development of our own nukes will go up many times louder.
Those calls will likely put pressure on the government to revisit the issue, which gained much traction in the public arena during the late stages of the previous administration. But then it was pretty much agreed that developing our own nuclear weapons was too costly. The alternative is to reintroduce U.S. tactical nuclear weapons onto the Korean Peninsula. U.S. tactical nukes were withdrawn in the early 1990s. That too is not a good idea for now.
First, tactical nukes are for battlefield use, while strategic ones are for destruction of cities and industrial complexes. Even considering the limited size of the theater on the peninsula, tactical nuclear weapons deployment is comparable to trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Then, it would anger China. The level of absurdity China is displaying in response to our decision to deploy the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor would go up many times, if we bring in U.S. tactical nuclear weapons.
Proponents would say it is our territory and our lives at stake, suggesting snubbing Beijing's indignant opposition. But succumbing to such a temptation would likely be more endangering than the nuclear-armed North.
The South may face a major disruption in trade caused by its biggest trading partner. That will likely not be the only precursor of what's to come. The real risk is that Korea is pulled into the crosshairs of a hegemonic battle between the United States and China or a flashpoint for a Third World War. It can't be ruled out that not just the North but also China is pointing their nuclear weapons at the southern part of the Korean Peninsula.
In that revival of the Cold War structure with a twist, our self-determination would be gone, while big powers plus the North would decide on affairs affecting our fate. For that reason alone, it is not clear the U.S. would agree to our request, if it is made. Then, a U.S. rejection could cause a rift in the two countries' alliance as Seoul would be up in arms for its own nuclear armament.
So there are good reasons not to make haste in pursuit of instant satisfaction from trying to bring in tactical nuclear weapons. We should act on them.
![[INTERVIEW] South Korea needs to make decision on sending lethal aid to Ukraine : CNAS CEO](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/a2180e54d7664819812514cc3d605dd5.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Foreign-born entertainers seek to revolutionize local industry](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/4a6b2bd3d23044d699dee3c5bb956863.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
