Now, though, South Korean military leaders are emphasizing in their declaratory doctrine the need for a prompt and vigorous response to future provocations. In addition, the South Korean military has stationed near the intra-Korean border dozens of US-made surface-to-surface precision-guided Army Tactical Missile Systems capable of hitting Pyongyang. The South Koreans, alone and in cooperation with the US military, have also been engaged in an expanded series of exercises during the past year. Although Chinese and Russian officials have often opposed them as provocative, the North Koreans have normally acted quietly and cautiously whenever the exercises take place.
So, what else could South Korea and the United States do to better deter North Korean aggression? One possibility would be to relax their plans to transfer operational command of joint military action on the Korean Peninsula from US Forces Korea to South Korea’s armed forces. They could also limit the scope of the combat missions that Seoul will take over from the Pentagon in the next few years. While the Americans see the move as upgrading South Korea’s status and underscoring US confidence in Seoul’s improving military capabilities, many South Koreans interpret the transfer as reflecting American eagerness to reduce its Seoul-related commitments and to reallocate US defence resources to higher security priorities.
Also, in theory at least, returning US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea could further assure its security from northern aggression. (The United States withdrew its small battlefield nuclear weapons from South Korea in late 1991, when the two Koreas were finalizing their ‘joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’.)
The United States clearly has superior nuclear and conventional forces to those of North Korea, but many South Koreans doubt whether the US really would respond to a nuclear attack on Seoul with a retaliatory strike against Pyongyang, especially if the North might respond by attacking US forces in Japan, or even striking the US homeland directly, with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. If the US nukes were already in South Korea, however, the North Korean leadership might be deterred since the weapons would be more visible and could more plausibly be fired, perhaps inadvertently, following an attack.
The North Koreans would be even more credibly deterred if South Korea possessed its own nuclear weapons since the Seoul government and military would be even more inclined to retaliate to a nuclear attack against its population or territory. Some South Koreans have become frustrated about the failure of the Six-Party Talks and other efforts to roll back North Korea’s nuclear programme, and see having their own nuclear weapons as ‘an equalizer’ to allow Seoul to negotiate with Pyongyang about Korean denuclearization from a position of equality and without having to adopt an aggressive conventional pre-emption doctrine against the North.
But regardless of how decision makers in Seoul see it, South Korea’s neighbours wouldn’t welcome a return of US nuclear weapons to the Peninsula—or South Korea’s acquisition of an independent nuclear deterrent. Beijing would be most likely to oppose these developments, since any nuclear weapons that could attack targets in North Korea would most likely be able to devastate targets in China as well.
And there’s one more reason why South Korea would meet opposition to doing so even from its ally the United States—the Obama administration is committed to decreasing the role of nuclear weapons in the world. Supporting the development of nuclear weapons in South Korea hardly seems consistent with this goal.
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!