For decades, the idea that the U.S. would risk war against North Korea to defend South Korea was a given in international politics. But in recent years, Seoul has had reasons to think this is changing.
President Trump has long made clear that he hopes to extinguish U.S.-North Korean tensions, even if it means accepting Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. More broadly, Washington has recentered its foreign policy on competing with rival great powers. China comes now front and center among security priorities, leaving many in Seoul pondering whether America has bandwidth left for the North Korean threat.
Washington faces a quandary on the Korean Peninsula. On the one hand, it needs a strong South Korean ally to hold the line against China. On the other, it wants amicable relations with Pyongyang in order to devote its energy to the Chinese threat. The United States needs a solution that both guarantees South Korean security and allows a rapprochement with North Korea.
Fortunately, such a solution exists. A growing debate over a potential national nuclear deterrent has taken hold in South Korea. The ever-growing strength of North Korea’s arsenal, combined with disillusion about the likelihood of denuclearization, is the prime driver. Other concerns, such as doubts about U.S. commitment, the country’s rapid demographic decline and the rise of China, further encourage the nuclear option.
A South Korean nuclear deterrent would promote the current administration’s foreign policy priorities. A stronger and more autonomous Seoul could finally take ownership of Peninsular security, allowing Washington to focus on the Chinese threat and the issue of Taiwan. The U.S. could thereby delegate deterring Pyongyang to South Korea and become a last-resort security provider instead of a first responder.
Over the long run, a more capable and confident South Korea would also feel emboldened to challenge Chinese power. It would notably be more likely to commit significant forces to a Taiwanese contingency. More secure, it would become more confident looking outward, for instance, by continuing to invest in the production of warships for the U.S. Navy, helping to resolve the ongoing shipbuilding discomfiture.
Coincidently, an inter-Korean nuclear balance would facilitate Donald Trump’s longstanding agenda of achieving an entente with Kim Jong Un. Indeed, the United States would feel less pressure to constantly shore up the credibility of its nuclear umbrella over South Korea through military posturing. This would alleviate the North Korean fear that U.S. strategic assets like nuclear-armed bombers and submarines circling its borders could serve as a prelude to a first nuclear strike, thus kickstarting confidence building.
A South Korean arsenal is not a proposal for a distant future. A technological powerhouse, South Korea could manufacture its first nuclear device in a matter of months and a fully functioning nuclear strike force with a sea-based deterrent within a few years.
An independent deterrent already has numerous supporters in the country; polls constantly show that around seven out of 10 South Koreans are in favor. In January 2023, former conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol raised the possibility of building a national nuclear deterrent. It is now a transpartisan view, with even progressive voters growingly sympathetic.
Neither is this solution unheard of in America. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy nominee Elbridge Colby finds value in a nuclear deterrent if it helps the U.S. pivot toward the Chinese challenge. Even Trump himself toyed with the idea.
Greenlighting a nuclear program would hardly be a first. In the past, Washington has let important allies develop nuclear arsenals, like Britain and France. Armed with the power of the atom, the two helped deter Soviet aggression and win the Cold War. Half a century later, hardly anyone regrets the U.S. carte blanche to British and French national deterrents.
An oft-heard counterargument is that Japan would go nuclear to imitate South Korea. First, Japan itself has been nuked and has suffered Russia, China and North Korea acquiring the bomb, and still did not follow suit. In recent years, Beijing has been adding hundreds of warheads to its arsenal, something infinitely more threatening for Tokyo than a few nukes from friendly South Korea. Second, if Japan becomes a nuclear power, then good for it. It is a steadfast U.S. ally, key in counterbalancing China. Hence, a nuclear Japan, like a nuclear Korea, would be a more potent ally to deter Chinese expansion.
U.S. policymakers now need to act. With China gearing up for war, Russia resurgent and American military power dangerously overstretched, there is no time for caution.
Thankfully, costless policies are actionable right now.
First, America should give Seoul the right to reprocess its spent nuclear fuel to allow rapidly manufacturing weapons if required. Washington already acquiesced to Japan reprocessing its nuclear fuel but not to South Korea, something that many in Korea resent. Second, U.S. leaders should signal to their Korean counterparts that they would support whatever Korea chooses. Washington should reassure Seoul that it would back its ally diplomatically were it to develop a national deterrent, hence alleviating the fear of international retaliations that holds many Korean experts and decision-makers back.
Understandably, many inside the Beltway are wary of nuclear proliferation. But the norm of nonproliferation is not worth sacrificing key national interests. In the current sea of unpleasant tradeoffs, South Korea going nuclear is the least bad option.
Dylan Motin is a visiting scholar at the Seoul National University Asia Center and non-resident Kelly Fellow at the Pacific Forum. He is also an expert at Terner Consulting and a non-resident fellow at the Republic of Korea Forum for Nuclear Strategy. He is the author of “How Louis XIV Survived His Hegemonic Bid: The Lessons of the Sun King’s War Termination.”
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( South Korea might go nuclear — and America should let it )
Also on site :
- Who Is FSU Shooting Suspect Phoenix Ikner? What We Know
- Man shot and killed by police in Golden Hill this week identified as Enrique Cortez, 37
- A$AP Rocky Is ‘Fire’ as Denzel Washington’s Son in ‘Highest 2 Lowest’ Film, Spike Lee Says