South Korea's Nuclear Dilemma: 5 Critical Questions Overlooked in the Debate

In recent developments, South Korea's defense establishment has been contemplating a significant shift in its nuclear policy. During a confirmation hearing earlier this month, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun stated that acquiring nuclear weapons is "among all possible options" to counter North Korea's growing nuclear threat. This statement marks a notable departure from South Korea's longstanding commitment to non-nuclear status.

The idea of South Korean nuclear armament has gained traction both domestically and internationally. Public opinion polls over the past decade have consistently shown majority support for nuclear weapons acquisition among South Koreans. Even some prominent American figures, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have expressed openness to the idea.

South Korea's nuclear ambitions stem from a dual concern: the fear of attack by increasingly assertive neighbors and potential abandonment by the United States. However, before embracing this path, policymakers in Seoul and Washington must consider five critical questions that are often overlooked in the current debate.

• Achieving a survivable nuclear arsenal:
  Developing a credible nuclear deterrent would require South Korea to match or exceed North Korea's estimated arsenal of 50-70 nuclear weapons. Given South Korea's geography, submarine-based nuclear missiles would be the most survivable option. However, this process could take a decade or more, creating a dangerous "window of vulnerability."

• U.S. protection during nuclear development:
  The United States would face a dilemma: continue protecting South Korea during its nuclear development or withdraw its forces. This situation could strain the alliance and raise questions about U.S. commitments globally.

• Increased risk of war:
  Historical precedents suggest that the initial years after nuclear acquisition are often fraught with tension and potential for conflict. South Korean nuclearization could increase instability in Northeast Asia, potentially drawing the U.S. into regional conflicts.

• Potential sanctions:
  U.S. law mandates sanctions against states acquiring nuclear weapons, including allies. South Korea would need to consider the economic impact of potential sanctions from the U.S., China, and other countries.

• Impact on global nonproliferation:
  U.S. acceptance of South Korean nuclear weapons could undermine the global nonproliferation regime, potentially encouraging other states to pursue nuclear capabilities.

It's worth noting that South Korea has a complex history with nuclear technology. The country signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1975 and has since maintained a robust civilian nuclear energy program, with 24 reactors providing about 30% of its electricity. South Korea briefly pursued a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s but has since adhered to a "three no's" policy: no nuclear weapons, no uranium enrichment, and no reprocessing.

South Korea's current military capabilities are significant, with defense spending at about 2.8% of GDP in 2023. The country has advanced missile technology and participates in joint military exercises with the U.S., including nuclear deterrence drills. Additionally, South Korea has been developing its own missile defense system, the Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD).

While the arguments for South Korean nuclear armament are understandable given the threats it faces, the potential risks and challenges cannot be ignored. The first decade or two of nuclear possession would likely be the most dangerous, as regional powers adjust to the new reality. An increase in nuclear-armed states raises the overall risk of arms races, crises, and potential nuclear use.

"The India nuclear deal has fallen far short of the overly lofty expectations on which it was sold."

This cautionary tale from the U.S.-India nuclear deal highlights the complexities of altering longstanding nuclear policies.

As the debate on South Korean nuclear armament continues, it is crucial for advocates to address these challenges seriously. The decision to pursue nuclear weapons is not one to be taken lightly, and a thorough examination of all potential consequences is essential for informed policymaking.