Concern about US security guarantees has prompted debate in South Korea over the possibility of redeploying US tactical nuclear weapons – or building some themselves.
Comments by influential South Koreans that their country should consider requesting the return of US nuclear weapons to their shores—or even acquire its own nuclear weapons—reflects persistent unease about how regional security developments are challenging US extended security guarantees developed during the Cold War.
In the case of South Korea, the United States pledged through a bilateral mutual defence treaty to help defend the country from an external attack, presumably from North Korea, with nuclear weapons if necessary. The deployment of sizeable US conventional forces in South Korea was aimed at making these extended security guarantees more credible.
The effectiveness of deterrence is difficult to prove, since by definition nothing happens. If a country is deterred from attacking, it is a non-event. Sceptics can plausibly argue that perhaps the presumed aggressor never intended to attack, or at least refrained from the assault for other reasons. Still, the North Korean invasion of the South was never repeated, perhaps due to US threats to retaliate—something that was lacking before June 1950.
Extended deterrence is a function of capacity, will, and perception. It requires that the guarantor has the capacity to defend another country under attack as well as the intent to do so, and this capacity-will combination must be perceived by the target as sufficiently strong that the potential aggressor decides to refrain.
In addition to deterring a potential aggressor through threats of retaliation, a deterrence pledge also involves an assurance dimension. The state receiving the guarantee must perceive it as credible given the guarantor’s capacity and will. Otherwise, it will seek to appease the potential aggressor—or balance the threat through unilateral action.
In the case of South Korea, the means of unilateral balancing under consideration has extended to include nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the United States stationed hundreds of nuclear weapons there. At times, early South Korean governments contemplated and even started nuclear weapons programmes.
The Cold War has ended, and the Pentagon removed all US nuclear weapons from South Korea two decades ago. But the commitment to defend the country with nuclear weapons if necessary is still seen as essential to keep South Koreans from losing faith in the US willingness or capacity to defend them.
In one of his last public speeches in Asia before leaving office, then US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged to participants at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore that several developments relating to North Korea were making the East Asian strategic environment more dangerous.
First, North Korea’s indiscriminate selling of items useful for making nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles was destabilizing ‘the entire region.’ Second, the US homeland was for the first time becoming vulnerable to a direct North Korean attack. Gates related that he and President Barack Obama had told Chinese leaders several times that North Korea’s continued progress in developing long-range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads was becoming a ‘direct threat to the United States.’
In addition, the risks had increased that any further North Korean provocations against South Korea would rapidly escalate into an armed confrontation between the two parties. Gates also warned that North Korea’s outrageous provocations against the South last year—sinking the Cheonan and shelling civilians on a border island—had so roused South Korean opinion that vigorous retaliation to any further provocations was much more likely. ‘And one of the worries we have dealt with over the last seven or eight months, both with our friends in the Republic of Korea and also in our dialogues with our Chinese friends and other members of the Group of Six is the danger of unpredictable escalation in the event of another provocation,’ he noted.
Photo Credit: US Army
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
meme
That nuclear weapons are even still an option on the table is reprehensible.
That the U.S., a country with a nearly all-powerful army (when not mired in pointless wars) would be troubled by the meager nuclear ambitions of a soon to fail dictatorship shows the miserable psychological insecurities that they and the world has over their own neighbors.
South Korea should not develop nuclear weapons. They should seek to infiltrate North Korean society more. More radio broadcasts. More efforts at commerce at a small level – tourism, border markets. Anything to instill a sense of self-determination in the peoples of North Korea. This will bring about change faster than any military deterrence could hope for.
To create a greater sense of threat will only allow the NK propaganda machines to scare and influence their population even more.
Also, while nuclear deterrence is often cited as preventing major conflicts between world superpowers, it really only shifted the wars to proxy wars fought on poorer countries soil.
If I were SK, I would worry more about NK destabilizing and having a flood of millions trying to leave the country. This is a far bigger threat than any military offensive NK has.
Leon Day
Six party talks and sanctions have not resulted in nuclear free Korean peninsula. History clearly demonstrates that NK will only respond to meaningful negotaitions in the presence of force. To achieve a lasting peace in Korean peninsula, South Korea must develop nuclear weapons. In my humble opinion, South Korea has techology and know-how to develop an advanced nuclear weapons. Once the South Korea stockpiles an appropriate quantity of nuclear weapons, North Korea will proceed with meaning negotiations to achieve nuclear free Korean peninsula. Therfore, in the interest of lasting peace, South Korea should develop an advanced nuclear weapon system.
Leon Day
Six party talks and sanctions have not resulted in nuclear free Korean peninsula. History clearly demonstrates that North Korea will only respond to meaningful negotaitions in the presence of force. To achieve a lasting peace in Korean peninsula, South Korea must develop nuclear weapons. In my humble opinion, South Korea has techology and know-how to develop an advanced nuclear weapons. Once the South Korea stockpiles an appropriate quantity of nuclear weapons, North Korea will proceed with meaning negotiations to achieve nuclear free Korean peninsula. Therfore, in the interest of lasting peace, South Korea should develop an advanced nuclear weapon system.
Kha Nguyen
It’s clear that South Korea and Japan also should develop their own nukes, as their potential foes – North Korea and China – already have. Relying on the US has a price, and South Vietnam is a good example for the South Korean and Japanese to look at.
Cyrus
That is where you are wrong. The United States backed up its word in the conflict with NoKor. It send in troops and lead the UN Forces from turning the tide instead of only having Busan it pushed the NoKor troops up to the boarder with China. If China did not intervene then the Korean Peninsula could have been united now.
Buck O’Fama
It would be nice to see the USA withdraw from the NPT. That way we could sell nukes to S, Korea, Tiawan, Poland, Georgia, Etc.. A Dozen GLCM’s with 400 Kt. warheads would have cause Russia to reconsider their invasion. The ROC having a SLBM or 3 with Mirv’d 200 Kt. warheads would sure give the Chi-Coms pause.
Both sides having nukes is a stand-off. One side having nukes is a prescription for War.
So far the USA acting as the Cops has kept the Wars from starting. Those days are fast drawing to a close. America is running out of will AND money. No other nation is capable of acting as the police. The power vacuum left by Americas withdrawal will be filled by the Nations most willing to use their nukes.
That is why Iran is hard at work on theirs. So if we sell a dozen or so to KSA, that will give the Mad Dog Mullahs (MDM) something to think about. The MDM knows Israel and the USA will not first strike them. Who knows what the KSA will do?
Krypter
China has allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, and so the US should allow South Korea to develop nuclear weapons as well. South Korea is a rich country and shouldn’t rely so heavily on the USA for its security, especially since “rolling back communism” is no longer necessary. What’s necessary is a balance of deterrence in East Asia, and that would be provided most easily by letting South Korea and Japan arm themselves with nuclear weapons. For China and North Korea, the costs of bullying or invading their democratic neighbours would rise astronomically.
ozivan
@Krypter. From another view, the world would be nicely balance by 2 new Asian nuclear powers, Japan & Korea, against UK & France. India vs Pakistan. US vs China. Russia is the wild card !!
mamush daniel
Don’t worry, once the warmonger US politicians push S.K. to the fire you will see what happens next, but before that the S.K. horse like government may remove the US warmongers and homo sexual Christian CIA chickens buddies way from its back and……. then … S.K. + N.K. = 1K = Peace.
yang zi
China should not worry nuclear weapons in South Korean or Japan. The proximity of these countries made sure these weapons are not used, if it ever used against China, it would mean the end of South Korean and Japan.
France and Britten both have nuclear weapons, they are at peace!
However, US is probably wise to discourage South Korean’s nuclear impulse. otherwise it is hard to persuade North Korean giving up its nuclear weapons.
ed hong
Oh my god, a non propaganda and thoughtful response from yang zi! I thought I would never see the day!