Debate heats up over how to tackle N. Korean threats

Lawmakers from the ruling Saenuri Party hold a meeting at the National Assembly, Sept. 30, to mull ways of better coping with growing threats from North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Rep. Won Yoo-chul, left, called for the country to arm itself with nuclear weapons from the standpoint of self-defense, while Rep. Chung Jin-suk, center, said the military should consider getting nuclear-powered attack submarines that can deal with the North’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles. / Yonhap

By Jun Ji-hye

The ever-growing nuclear and missile threats from North Korea have been fueling various issues related to national security among politicians, some of whom have called for the nation to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Others have also called for the development of a nuclear-powered submarine and the prompt takeover of the wartime operational control (OPCON) of the South Korean military by the United States.

Given the North’s unwillingness to stop its military provocations despite warnings from the global community, politicians are expected to continue raising national security-related issues, probably until the 2017 presidential election, apparently mindful of the fact that security issues in this country, which is still technically at war with the North, are always a good tool to attract voters.

But critics point out that the politicians’ continued attempts to raise security-related issues would only create populist pledges that have little possibility of realization.

Gyeonggi Province Gov. Nam Kyung-pil speaks at a parliamentary inspection held at the provincial government building in Suwon, Oct. 5, during which he raised the need for the nation’s nuclear armament, and a shift from conscription to a volunteer military system. / Yonhap

After Pyongyang conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear test on Sept. 9, politicians from the conservative Saenuri Party called for the South’s nuclear armament, saying it is the only effective way to deter provocations from the North.

Some even said the nation could also consider leaving the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which stipulates that a member can leave the agreement if its national security is severely challenged.

On Oct. 3, Gyeonggi Province Gov. Nam Kyung-pil, a potential presidential candidate for the ruling party, said the nation should begin preparations for nuclear armament in the face of growing threats from the North. Citing concerns that the United States may withdraw its nuclear umbrella from South Korea, Nam said it is time for Seoul to consider various options, one of which is nuclear weapons.

“Preparations for nuclear armament should begin with the next government, or, in fact, now,” he said.

Last month, Rep. Won Yoo-chul, a former ruling party floor leader, made a similar comment, saying the nation should devise all possible ways to deter threats from the reclusive state, including nuclear armament from the standpoint of self-defense.

“North Korea’s fifth nuclear test is breaking the peace and stability in Northeast Asia and fueling fears and anxieties,” he said.

He also said the nation should consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to be able to acquire nuclear weapons.

The repressive state claimed that during its latest nuke test, it detonated a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can be mounted on a ballistic missile.

In addition, the North Korean Embassy in Russia claimed late last month that the North has “basically completed” development of its nuclear weapons, saying it will continue a qualitative and quantitative buildup of such weapons.

The test followed a series of launches of short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in recent months.

In the wake of the test, observers here say the North now seems to be in the final stages of completing its nuclear and missile programs.

Calls for developing a nuclear-powered submarine were made after the North successfully fired a SLBM, Aug. 24, which flew about 500 kilometers and landed within Japan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in the East Sea.

Days after the launch, Rep. Chung Jin-suk, incumbent floor leader of the ruling party, said the military should consider getting nuclear submarines that can deal with the North’s SLBMs, which he said are a more serious threat than land-based missiles, as their launch point is difficult to detect.

A nuclear sub can stay submerged and hidden under water for as long as it has fuel and supplies for its crew, making it harder to track than conventional diesel-electric subs that have to surface frequently and operate a diesel engine to recharge their batteries.

Supporters of having nuclear subs say such vessels can be assigned to patrol around North Korean submarine bases without being detected and trail SLBM-armed subs heading out to sea.

However, concerns also abound that the nation would face many problems in developing and possessing nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines.

For one, Seoul has stuck to a 1992 inter-Korean denuclearization declaration that states that the two Koreas will not develop or hold any nuclear weapons. The nation also ratified the NPT in 1975 and has so far remained formally committed to it. Thus, to actually develop and possess nuclear weapons, the nation would need to withdraw from both the inter-Korean declaration and the NPT, which would cause opposition and sanctions from the international community.

In addition, a government official said on condition of anonymity that calls for a nuclear-armed South Korea are “unrealistic,” as the country’s nuclear armament will pose a serious challenge to international nuclear nonproliferation.

While the NPT refers to nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices, it does not appear to specifically restrict development of nuclear-powered submarines.

But the question is whether the United States, which virtually controls the uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing of South Korea, would approve of Seoul’s uranium enrichment in order to operate a nuclear sub. Some say that a revision of the Seoul-Washington nuclear cooperation deal signed last year would allow Seoul to enrich its uranium to a level of 20 percent when using U.S. ingredients, but critics point out that the agreement disallows uranium enrichment for military purposes.

The nation’s development of nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines, should it push forward, would create a crack in the Seoul-Washington alliance and possibly prompt protests from neighboring countries, especially China, which has already been protesting the planned deployment of a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery on South Korean soil by next year.

Beijing believes the battery’s AN/TPY-2 radar could be used to spy on the country’s military activities and missiles, although Seoul and Washington maintain their stance that the system is only designed to defend against Pyongyang’s missiles.

Experts say Seoul’s development of a nuclear sub could also prompt Japan to develop its own subs and pursue nuclear armament, and consequently, cause a fierce arms race in Northeast Asia.

Kim Young-hwan, secretary-general of the opposition People’s Party, said, “Populist arguments regarding national security, which apparently use the people’s anxiety, are just irresponsible.”

Other national security-related issues that have been raised recently include calls for the OPCON to be transferred to Seoul from Washington at the earliest. Under the Seoul-Washington alliance, a U.S. commander will have control over South Korean troops in the event of a war with North Korea. The two sides originally planned to transfer the OPCON to Seoul in December 2015 but later postponed it to an unspecified date in the mid-2020s.

Gov. Nam made the proposal for the prompt takeover of the OPCON, saying, “There’s talk in the U.S. of a unilateral preemptive strike against North Korea. If this happens, we’ll have no voice without the OPCON. North Korea doesn’t want to recognize us as a dialogue partner, saying we don’t even have the OPCON.”

Nam also called for the country’s move from a conscription to a volunteer military system for all able-bodied men aged between 19 and 37, considering the nation’s shockingly low birthrate and the growing concerns over bullying in the military.

But political analysts remain skeptical of the proposed move, saying voters will not feel secure about adopting an all-volunteer force unless North Korea’s military threats are removed.