6 July 2024, NIICE Commentary 9321
Mira Rai 

The nuclearization of South Korea has been a topic of debate recently, with a staggering three-quarters of the public supporting it. South Koreans have grown anxious due to various factors, such as the escalating nuclear threats from North Korea, uncertain US security commitments, and geopolitical shifts. Over the past few years, tensions on the Korean Peninsula have been rising more than before, alongside increasing calls for nuclear weapons to protect South Korea against their adversaries in North Korea. This article investigates the feasibility of South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons and examines the associated prospects, challenges, and risks.

South Korea’s Nuclearization

Since South Korea picked up the US support, the geopolitical landscape has evolved significantly and North Korea is developing increasingly sophisticated nuclear arsenals and long-range missiles, including the “most powerful” Hwasong-18, a three-stage solid-fueled ICBL that poses a threat to South Korean national security. So, in order to deter North Korea’s preemptive nuclear strikes and defend borders, South Korean policymakers are pushing to be more involved in considering acquiring of nuclear weapons, which could serve as a deterrent and enhance national security despite staggering numbers of public opinion polls over the last decade indicating a consistent support for nuclear possession. In a way, this solidifies the claims of realism, where survival is the main objective in anarchic international systems and in a similar way even for South Korea’s survival, the decision to go nuclear would be driven by its evaluation of threats to its security, particularly from North Korea. In addition, pursuing nuclear weapons would also provide leverage for South Korean politicians and policymakers, boosting the country’s political standing and increasing its influence on the global stage.

South Korea’s desire to have nuclear weapons is largely due to America’s behavior as well. Since the incident in 2016, then-President Donald Trump accused South Korea of free-riding, vowing to make Seoul pay for US troops stationed on its soil or withdraw them. South Korea’s fears about the US’s defense commitment started growing as a result of these statements. South Korea relies largely on the United States for security, and the US nuclear umbrella provides a measure of deterrence against prospective rivals as well as the reassurance of its “iron-clad” commitment to its defense, which has become less reliable as a result of shifting US leadership and their viewpoints or adjustments in US foreign policy.

In addition, former President Moon Jae argues that the February 2019 North Korea-US summit failed because the US did not understand the implication of the irreversible closure of the Yongbyon nuclear complex and the complete closure of the Nuclear Weapons Institute, of North Korea’s offer. This argument was also supported by Dr. Siegfried Hecker (an experienced US nuclear scientist). Hecker concluded that US officials, including John Bolton (a former US National Security Advisor), did not understand the significance of the Nuclear Weapons Institute (NWI). If the US had properly understood North Korea’s offer, it could have led to significant denuclearization progress. This potential missed opportunity, due to the US not fully grasping the offer’s significance, is a source of frustration for South Koreans. As a result, South Korea has begun to debate whether to continue relying on US extended nuclear deterrence or to acquire its own nuclear weapons. 

Despite US nuclear deployment in South Korea, incidents like the protests over the US THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense deployment in South Korea in 2016, which continues today, have heightened tensions and increased the risk of unintended nuclear escalation, potentially resulting in fierce protests from China. There also appears to be a political split between conservatives and progressives. While fewer members of the Democratic Party (DP) agree with the survey, the majority of conservative People Power Party (PPP), at 71 percent, supports US nuclear weapons deployment. Supporters of the Democratic Party are divided, with 47 percent in favor of and 51 percent against US nuclear deployment. These political dynamics in South Korea might also lead it to consider nuclearization. However, decisions about denuclearization could also be influenced to lessen tensions and advance stability when weighing the national interest and the security dilemma—where one state’s efforts to enhance its security may unintentionally threaten others. 

Challenges and Risks

Going nuclear is a colossal choice since the current international order is based on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those who threaten it, like Iran and North Korea, have paid a heavy price. The majority of analysts feel that South Korea has not considered the consequences and that the US will not withdraw from their military alliance; rather, nuclear arming will create such a fracture in the non-proliferation regime that other nations will follow. Furthermore, it may exacerbate regional tensions and trigger an arms race with North Korea, China, and Japan. It also has a huge impact on South Korea’s diplomatic relations with many countries and international groups, particularly with the US, as this can lead to violations of the International Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

South Korea’s nuclear weapons could potentially trigger other countries, like Japan and Taiwan, to follow suit and reassess their security concerns. On the other hand, China may retaliate fiercely by harassing South Korea with sanctions, causing South Korea’s worldwide reputation and economy to deteriorate. Furthermore, the development of nuclear weapons threatens South Korea’s position as a middle-power country with the ability to influence international agendas through its rising soft power. Such an action would further destabilize the Korean Peninsula, providing Pyongyang with a justification to accelerate its nuclear and missile development.

Alternatives to Nuclearization

Even if it does not acquire nuclear weapons, South Korea cannot afford to ignore North Korea’s threats and must instead consider numerous alternatives to improve national security. To discourage North Korean threats, President Yoon has pledged to strengthen the alliance with the United States while also increasing collaboration with the international community. In addition, he would strengthen military readiness to protect the people’s freedom and security. Thus, South Korea might embrace this approach by expanding conventional military capabilities by investing in new weapon systems, raising troop numbers, and upgrading training and readiness in order to maintain a strong conventional deterrent against North Korea.

Another is that South Korea can pursue its diplomatic engagement, as it has the power to diplomatically resolve the security conflicts with North Korea. Rather than adopting the simplest way to protect itself, it should continually collaborate with its neighboring countries to compel North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons. It can strengthen security connections with regional countries. For example, South Korea, Japan, and China recently held a trilateral summit that emphasized total denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

Conclusion

In order to strengthen its security and advance its interests as a nation, South Korea, which is striving to establish itself as an economic powerhouse and rising star in Asia, has ambitions to get nuclear weapons. Subsequently, North Korea’s escalating nuclear activities and shifting US politics also have made South Korea wonder if building its own nuclear arsenal would be better than depending on US nuclear defense. For South Korea, this security dilemma presents a significant policy challenge. In line with realist principles, nations prioritize security and advancing their national interests through power balance strategies. In the same way, South Korea seeks to maintain its current status, enhance its power, and forge alliances as it strives to consolidate its position as a middle power in the region. However, South Korean nuclearization could significantly impact the regional balance of power by intensifying rivalries and bloc politics in Asia, which increases the nuclear risk and destabilizes the region. Therefore, rather than pursuing the easiest path for its defense, South Korea should find coherent alternatives and use its soft power diplomacy more rigorously in order to build lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula for future generations.

Mira Rai is a Research Associate at the Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE).