By Jun Ji-hye
Can South Korea develop a nuclear-powered attack submarine to deter threats from North Korea's submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)?
The government and the ruling Saenuri Party said Tuesday that they have agreed to consider developing such a vessel during a meeting at the National Assembly.
Rep. Kim Gwang-lim, chief policymaker of the ruling party, told reporters after the meeting that he strongly requested the government to build a nuclear-powered attack submarine as early as possible to counter the North's SLBM threat.
"The party stressed that securing a nuclear sub is an urgent task to overcome the North's asymmetric capabilities and strengthen self-defense," he said. "The government vowed to seriously consider the suggestion."
However, critics have questioned the feasibility of the development, saying that the nation would face major hurdles, including disapproval from the United States, which virtually controls the uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing of South Korea.
Calls for developing a nuclear attack sub surfaced after the North successfully launched an SLBM, Aug. 24, which flew about 500 kilometers and landed within Japan's Air Defense Identification Zone in the East Sea. If an SLBM flies at least 300 kilometers during its test, the launch is considered successful, according to experts.
Days after the launch, Rep. Chung Jin-suk, floor leader of the ruling party, publicly urged the military to consider getting nuclear attack 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 submarine can stay submerged and hidden under water for as long as it has supplies for its crew, making it harder to track than conventional diesel-electric ones that have to surface frequently and operate a diesel engine to recharge their batteries.
Supporters of having nuclear attack 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.
Moon Keun-sik, a submarine expert at the Korea Defense Security Forum, said, "If the technological aspect is considered only, the military would be able to develop and build a nuclear sub within two to three years."
But critics point out that the development could provoke controversy over whether or not this would contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the government ratified in 1975 and has remained formally committed to since then.
Regarding this, the Ministry of National Defense said that while the NPT refers to nuclear weapons, it does not appear to specifically restrict development of nuclear-powered submarines. The ministry added that the development of a nuclear sub would not be against International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, either.
But another question is whether the United States would approve of Seoul's uranium enrichment in order to operate such a submarine. 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 two countries have yet to review whether or not the revision would allow South Korea to secure uranium necessary for a nuclear submarine," a ministry official said on condition of anonymity.
Critics added that Seoul's development of a nuclear attack sub could also prompt Japan to develop its own and pursue nuclear armament, and consequently, cause an arms race in Northeast Asia.
"We should consider the balance of military might in the Northeast Asian region," the official said.
Can South Korea develop a nuclear-powered attack submarine to deter threats from North Korea's submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)?
The government and the ruling Saenuri Party said Tuesday that they have agreed to consider developing such a vessel during a meeting at the National Assembly.
Rep. Kim Gwang-lim, chief policymaker of the ruling party, told reporters after the meeting that he strongly requested the government to build a nuclear-powered attack submarine as early as possible to counter the North's SLBM threat.
"The party stressed that securing a nuclear sub is an urgent task to overcome the North's asymmetric capabilities and strengthen self-defense," he said. "The government vowed to seriously consider the suggestion."
However, critics have questioned the feasibility of the development, saying that the nation would face major hurdles, including disapproval from the United States, which virtually controls the uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing of South Korea.
Calls for developing a nuclear attack sub surfaced after the North successfully launched an SLBM, Aug. 24, which flew about 500 kilometers and landed within Japan's Air Defense Identification Zone in the East Sea. If an SLBM flies at least 300 kilometers during its test, the launch is considered successful, according to experts.
Days after the launch, Rep. Chung Jin-suk, floor leader of the ruling party, publicly urged the military to consider getting nuclear attack 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 submarine can stay submerged and hidden under water for as long as it has supplies for its crew, making it harder to track than conventional diesel-electric ones that have to surface frequently and operate a diesel engine to recharge their batteries.
Supporters of having nuclear attack 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.
Moon Keun-sik, a submarine expert at the Korea Defense Security Forum, said, "If the technological aspect is considered only, the military would be able to develop and build a nuclear sub within two to three years."
But critics point out that the development could provoke controversy over whether or not this would contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the government ratified in 1975 and has remained formally committed to since then.
Regarding this, the Ministry of National Defense said that while the NPT refers to nuclear weapons, it does not appear to specifically restrict development of nuclear-powered submarines. The ministry added that the development of a nuclear sub would not be against International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, either.
But another question is whether the United States would approve of Seoul's uranium enrichment in order to operate such a submarine. 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 two countries have yet to review whether or not the revision would allow South Korea to secure uranium necessary for a nuclear submarine," a ministry official said on condition of anonymity.
Critics added that Seoul's development of a nuclear attack sub could also prompt Japan to develop its own and pursue nuclear armament, and consequently, cause an arms race in Northeast Asia.
"We should consider the balance of military might in the Northeast Asian region," the official said.
