South Korea has so far adhered to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ), largely relying on its ties to the United States for security, despite having the technical prowess to develop nuclear weapons. But, as North Korea continues to advance its nuclear skills, confidence in the US protection umbrella is waning.
In the event of a North Korean nuclear attack, there is growing concern that the United States might dare to fight, leading South Koreans to look into other protection options.
The US-South Korea alliance’s weakness, which is strained by trade issues and British threats to reduce military assistance, further aggravate calls for South Korea to evaluate its non-nuclear position.
The North Korea issue
The existential risk posed by North Korea is the most urgent and compelling rationale for South Korea to seek its own nuclear programme.
Despite various diplomatic efforts, including conferences and discussions, Pyongyang has continued to expand its nuclear army. The government’s expanding stash, combined with the development of sophisticated delivery methods like intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs), poses a immediate and significant threat to both South Korea and the rest of the world, including the United States.
In an increasingly questionable political environment, relying only on external assures is becoming riskier, despite the US’ long offer of a nuclear umbrella to shield South Korea. There are no guarantees that upcoming governments will exhibit the same level of commitment to South Korea’s protection as the US itself, which is a global security challenge.
Seoul may have a powerful tool to maintain its own safety if it had an independent nuclear deterrent, regardless of the shifting sand of international politics.
Local power relationships
South Korea may consider the local power dynamics in addition to the urgent threat posed by the North. The safety landscape of East Asia has been reshaped by China’s fall as a worldwide power. South Korea is confronted by Beijing’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea, its military development, and its growing control over local politics both directly and indirectly.
Japan, another important person in the region, has just taken steps to improve its own defenses, including updating its pacifist constitution to make it possible for more powerful military operations. This shift makes the proper environment even more difficult, and it raises questions about the region’s long-term balance.
In such a perspective, South Korea’s security can entirely depend on alliances or international standards, it must have the capability to protect itself separately.
In addition, the growing defense ties between Russia and North Korea add an extra layer of complexity to the protection situation on the Korean Peninsula. Enhanced ties between Pyongyang and Moscow raise the possibility that Russian military assets will be involved in upcoming conflicts, making the security math for North Korean protection planners even more complicated.
Additionally, the developing trilateral cooperation between China, Russia, and North Korea underscores the need for South Korea to reestablish a proper balance in the area. The idea of nuclear weapons is increasingly seen as a necessity in this shifting political landscape to counteract these growing threats and protect South Korea’s protection interests.
The reliability of punishment
Possible aggressors are prevented from attacking if they believe the costs may outweigh the advantages due to the concept of punishment. For South Korea, having its own nukes had significantly strengthen the viability of its punishment approach.
Nuclear weapons provide a guarantee against existential challenges, something that is essential when facing an attack like North Korea, which has consistently shown a willingness to engage in brinkmanship.
A North Korean nuclear arsenal was also serve as a stabilizing force by creating a power balance. South Korea would be more able to negotiate with both North Korea and other local actors, which might lead to better security plans and a lower likelihood of issue because it already has nuclear weapons.
The middle-ground method: a weak deterrence model
Some experts have suggested a middle-ground strategy for South Korea in response to the difficulties brought on by whole nuclear armament. In order to maintain its compliance with the NPT, South Korea must develop the industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons without triggering true deployment. Usually compared to Japan’s hidden nuclear capability, this method is seen as a means of achieving punishment without totally committing to nuclearization.
However, this approach may prove insufficient given South Korea’s specific security environment. Latent nuclear capability may have some deterrent effects, but it’s unlikely to be useful in high-intensity conflict scenarios where threats are imminent.
Traditional deterrence relies on the immediate and credible threat of retaliation to stop adversaries from launching a first strike. In fast-paced conflicts, such as a potential North Korean nuclear attack, the ability to respond swiftly is critical. A delayed nuclear counterattack would n’t be able to deter a nation’s nuclear weapons from its own use.
Economic impact and technological prowess
With advanced infrastructure and expertise, South Korea is already a global leader in nuclear energy technology.
Given South Korea’s already established technological base, switching from civilian nuclear energy to a military program would be challenging but doable. Additionally, it could be managed to control the economic effects of this change, especially given the advantages of improved national security and lessening dependence on foreign military support over time.
Critics might contend that a nuclear arsenal could lead to economic sanctions or a decline in foreign investment. These risks could be mitigated by South Korea’s robust economy and its significant contribution to global supply chains. Given the unique security challenges South Korea faces, the international community might be more cognizant of its position, especially if Seoul pursues a transparent and responsible approach to developing its nuclear capabilities.
Moral and diplomatic considerations
The moral and diplomatic ramifications of developing nuclear weapons must be considered in comparison to the need for national survival. South Korea is a democracy that is deeply committed to international standards and peace. It must also be aware that safeguarding its citizens and sovereignty is its top priority.
Diplomatically, South Korea should pursue a dual strategy: continuing to engage in arms control and non-proliferation efforts while developing a nuclear capability as a last resort. Seoul can demonstrate that Seoul’s decision to use nuclear weapons is not a surrender of its commitment to peace, but rather a necessary step in an increasingly hostile environment.
Way forward
Significant risks and difficulties come with choosing to develop nuclear weapons. Given the current security situation, South Korea must take this option seriously as a component of a wider plan to safeguard its national defense. A nuclear capability may be South Korea’s most effective means of ensuring its future, given the threat from North Korea, regional power dynamics, and the need for credible deterrence.
The growing interest in nuclear armament, as demonstrated by nationwide campaigns, is a result of the growing concern over the sufficiency of the current defense measures. Decisions made in the near future will have significant and long-term effects on the Korean Peninsula’s stability and security. The gravity of the situation necessitates a carefully considered and strategic approach, regardless of whether South Korea chooses to pursue nuclear armament or adopts alternative strategies to address the threats posed by North Korea, China, and other regional actors.
The international community will be closely monitoring South Korea’s progress at this crucial time as the search for a secure and peaceful Korean Peninsula intensifies. The security landscape of the country will be influenced by the choices made today for decades to come, determining whether South Korea continues to be vulnerable to external threats or develops into a more independent and resilient regional power.
Lakhvinder Singh is the Asia Institute in Seoul’s director of peace and security studies.