A year after President Yoon Suk Yeol raised global concerns by suggesting that South Korea might consider acquiring tactical nuclear weapons, a Gallup Korea survey revealed that 73% of South Koreans now favor the country developing its own nuclear capabilities. While President Yoon later backtracked on his statement, describing nuclear development as impractical despite earlier indications it could happen “pretty quickly,” there is growing momentum toward nuclearization, a shift that could result in significant worldwide implications.
As reported by *The Times*, discussions about South Korea acquiring nuclear arms have gained traction over the past two years, with a majority now supporting it. However, substantial political and practical obstacles remain, and the timeframe for such a move is expected to span several years.
Currently, South Korea relies on the U. S. “nuclear umbrella” for its defense, even though American nuclear weapons were pulled from the nation in 1991. South Korea is also a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), advocating for denuclearization on the peninsula to pressure North Korea into dismantling its growing nuclear arsenal. In contrast, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has continued to develop nuclear weaponry, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of targeting the U. S.
These missiles are not directed specifically at the U. S. , but they create uncertainty about the American response to a potential conflict on the Korean peninsula. As Cheong Seong-chang from the Sejong Institute pointed out, “The fact that North Korea possesses the nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could attack the United States makes the United States far less likely to wish to engage in a conflict with North Korea. ”
The strategic relationship between North Korea and Russia complicates the situation further, with concerns that Russia could supply Kim Jong-un with advanced missile technology. This anxiety is heightened by the possibility of Donald Trump returning to the presidency, whose “America First” policies could lead to a reduced U. S. military presence in South Korea. Trump has previously expressed doubt about traditional alliances and has proposed that South Korea should contribute more toward the costs of U. S. troops stationed there.
“If I were there now, they would be paying us $10 billion a year,” Trump commented before his election, as opposed to the $1 billion Seoul currently provides. Cheong believes that if Trump decreases U. S. forces, the opposition to nuclearization in South Korea may diminish.
Although South Korea has the technical capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, including reactors that could produce materials for warheads, the main challenges are political. Pursuing nuclear capabilities could shift South Korea from being a respected member of the global community to becoming a pariah, facing economic sanctions similar to those imposed on North Korea. This is why President Yoon dismissed nuclearization despite receiving bolstered security guarantees from President Joe Biden. The Glenn Amendment mandates that any NPT signatory that conducts a nuclear test must face sanctions, including the cessation of U. S. military support.
American nuclear authority Siegfried Hecker warned that South Korea’s decision would involve major trade-offs. “The South can develop its own nuclear arsenal — at significant expense and sacrifice — or partner with the Americans to remain secure under the nuclear umbrella with American forces based on the peninsula. It cannot have both. ”
While Cheong from the Sejong Institute suggested that South Korea may ultimately obtain implicit U. S. approval of its nuclear capabilities, akin to India’s situation, a nuclear-armed South Korea would cause anxiety for Japan, potentially sparking a discussion about nuclear arms in Tokyo. This could initiate a “nuclear domino effect” in the region, affecting countries like Taiwan and Vietnam.
Even though popular support for nuclearization drops to about 40% when the costs and complexities are highlighted, the discussion surrounding South Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unlikely to diminish. The genie, once let out of the bottle, cannot be put back.
