During the presidency of Park Chung-hee in the 1970s, South Korea’s interest in developing nuclear arms dates back to that time.
In light of North Korea’s growing interest in nuclear weapons and its escalating military skills, this time was marred by increased local conflicts and a growing sense of insecurity.
In light of the rapidly altering political landscape at the time, there was a prevalent attitude among South Koreans that security guarantees should be backed up.
These factors, along with several local political considerations, collectively spurred the North Korean command to start a secret nuclear weapons program aimed at bolstering the world’s defence capabilities.
South Korea sought to address its security problems freely of its allies in the region as a result of the secret nature of this system, which underlined the delicate political dynamics of the time.
Nevertheless, the United States, a vital ally and proper companion, was unwilling to permit South Korea to challenge the country’s five nuclear-armed countries or stifle the regional nuclear balance.
In response, the US put a lot of stress on South Korea to curb its nuclear interests. In response, South Korea agreed to end its nuclear program and continue to be bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ) by the late 1970s. South Korea has since adhered to its NPT-assisted commitment to preventing the spread of nuclear arms and encouraging the peaceful use of atomic energy.
However, there has been a rekindled debate within South Korea regarding the potential revision of its nuclear options in recent years as a result of North Korea’s successful acquisition of nuclear weapons and the region’s rapidly evolving political environment, highlighted by the position of Russia, China, and North Korea in opposition to the US-led proper layout.
This modern debate between South Koreans is a reflection of local threats and current security concerns.
New nuclear vehicle vehicles for South Korea
A changing political environment, growing threats from North Korea, and challenges posed by an forceful China are all factors that contribute to the complicated and multi-dimensional controversy over whether South Korea should develop its own nuclear weapons.
South Korea has been wrestling with the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons to recover the region’s energy balance for a while. Given the peninsula’s and the surrounding area’s rapidly deteriorating security interactions, it is becoming more and more important to consider whether to postpone this choice.
South Korea has so far adhered to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ), relied on its partnership with the US, and has not yet developed nuclear weapons despite having the necessary technical expertise and knowledge.
However, the debate over the best course of action for South Korea is getting more heated as a result of concerns about how effective the NPT is in halting nuclear spread worldwide.
An independent nuclear arsenal, in the opinion of many in South Korea, would lessen its emphasis on the US for security and give the nation more autonomy in its defence strategy.
North Korea has become a major nuclear power with a large arsenal in spite of US pressure and severe sanctions from the international community. Despite various kinds of stress, North Korea has continued to expand its nuclear features, possibly threatening South Korea and even the US island.
As North Korea’s army expands, there are resounding concerns about the US’s nuclear umbrella’s suitability, with some in South Korea questioning whether the US would stand up for South Korea, particularly since Washington is dealing with more serious problems in other regions of the world, for as Ukraine and the Middle East.
Some South Koreans now think that having nuclear weapons could give them more leverage in dealing with North Korea and other local players. By signaling a possible commitment to develop nuclear weapons, South Korea may encourage North Korea and its allies, including China, to join more effectively in negotiations. This approach may encourage more efficient denuclearization discussions and put an end to North Korea’s nuclear development.
The new strategic relationship between North Korea and Russia, which includes joint security agreements, complicates the local security landscape. South Korea might start to consider a wider range of security options, including developing its own nuclear deterrent, as a result of this alliance, which might strengthen North Korea’s nuclear position.
With more people supporting a domestic nuclear capability, South Korean public opinion has significantly changed. Polls show that a sizable portion of the populace supports this theory because they are concerned about North Korea’s nuclear threats and doubt whether US protection is reliable. This change in public opinion may be a result of a growing trend toward considering nuclear weapons as a defensive measure.
Discussions about South Korea’s nuclear options have rekindled since Donald Trump’s potential return to office. Trump suggested that South Korea and Japan might consider developing indigenous nuclear weapons to bolster North Korea and lessen their reliance on the United States for security during their first presidential campaign in 2016.
During his previous term, Trump’s unconventional foreign policy, particularly toward North Korea, raised concerns about US defense commitments. Many in Seoul were alarmed by his direct ties with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his decision to suspend joint military exercises with South Korea in 2018 because they are essential to preventing potential aggression.
If re-elected, Trump might continue to prioritize direct engagement with North Korea, potentially at the expense of traditional deterrence strategies. If Seoul does n’t significantly increase its financial contributions, the US military might reduce its presence there.
However, while developing nuclear weapons could enhance South Korea’s deterrence against North Korea, it also poses significant risks, including diplomatic and economic isolation. A similar action might sputter on the nerves of neighboring nations, particularly China and North Korea, and could also start a regional arms race.
Japan, for instance, might feel compelled to develop its own nuclear arsenal, fundamentally altering the security dynamics in East Asia.
Furthermore, South Korea’s nuclearization would violate the NPT, likely resulting in international condemnation and potential economic sanctions. The United States, along with its regional allies, might also impose sanctions if South Korea proceeds without proper coordination, despite their alliance.
Parallels with India’s nuclear program
Considerable costs and international repercussions are factors in deciding whether to develop nuclear weapons, as well as the need for a strong deterrent against North Korea, as well as increased national security and strategic advantages.
As South Korea navigates this complex issue, it finds parallels in India’s nuclear journey. India’s nuclear program was driven by security concerns, the desire for strategic autonomy, and the aspiration to enhance its international standing. India aimed to bolster its regional leadership by putting an end to China and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Similarly, South Korea has relied on the US nuclear umbrella to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat. However, North Korea’s persistent and growing threats have boosted domestic support for a self-sufficient nuclear deterrent. In spite of doubts about the viability and viability of US extended deterrence, South Korea seeks to exert greater control over its national security, which reduces its dependence on the US.
India experienced many of the same issues and difficulties that South Korea is currently experiencing as it developed its nuclear weapons. Thus, India’s experience offers valuable lessons for South Korea.
India managed to secure strategic partnerships with major powers, including the United States, despite facing international criticism and sanctions as a result of its 1998 nuclear tests. This provides a potential roadmap for South Korea by indicating that the long-term advantages of nuclear deterrence outweigh the short-term diplomatic and economic costs.
There are a number of ways India could help as South Korea considers its nuclear future. India could offer diplomatic support, share its experiences in managing international sanctions, and help establish post-nuclearization partnerships. Both nations could benefit from cooperation in nuclear safety, civilian nuclear energy, and related fields. A nuclear-related global dialogue could help to bring about regional stability and security, balancing China’s influence, and addressing the threat posed by North Korea.
India and South Korea can withstand potential international sanctions and backlash, which could have an impact on their economies and standing globally.
India’s support of South Korea’s nuclear program might serve as a counterweight to North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal and its strategic alliance with Russia. By supporting South Korea, India can help to restore Asia’s power balance and foster a stable and secure regional environment, reducing the risk of nuclear conflict.
A strategic decision that would balance geopolitical power in Asia, promote regional security, and strengthen bilateral relations would be made if India supported South Korea’s nuclear program. India can help South Korea become more stable and secure by drawing lessons from its nuclear history.
Lakhvinder Singh is the Asia Institute in Seoul’s director of peace and security studies.