 |
| gettyimagesbank |
Experts see possessing nuclear weapons 'impossible'
By Kang Seung-woo
The
years-long subject of South Korea possessing its own nuclear weapons is being rekindled in response to North Korea's rapid expansion of its nuclear program.
The South Korean and U.S. governments have made clear their objections to the idea, but given Pyongyang's meaningful progress in the development of nuclear weapons, it is likely to remain a debatable topic in the foreseeable future.
In the past, there have often been calls here for South Korea to acquire its own nuclear arsenal, but to no avail due to a possible violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would be followed by sanctions and the disapproval of Washington that is wary of the spread of nuclear weapons.
Joseph DeTrani, a former special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, was the latest to revisit the dormant issue.
"North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests and continues to reprocess spent fuel rods for plutonium for nuclear weapons. They are assessed to have between 40 and 60 nuclear weapons," DeTrani said in a contribution to the Hill, a U.S. political website, Oct. 17.
"There is appropriate current concern that other nation-states will try to acquire nuclear weapons capability, usually for deterrence purposes. Indeed, if North Korea is permitted to retain its nuclear weapons, South Korea, Japan and others in the region may decide that, despite U.S. nuclear deterrence commitments, they need their own nuclear weapons."
His assessment is in line with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
According to the DIA's Oct. 15 report on North Korea's military power, unless it agrees to full denuclearization, including the scrapping of delivery systems, it will likely grow and advance in many sectors, including nuclear weapons, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and land-based ballistic missiles
"Kim Jong-un has placed a priority on the development and demonstration of weapons that provide North Korea the means to strike distant adversaries ― including the United States ― with nuclear weapons. … It is possible we could see a test of a long range missile over the next year," the report said, adding the country has become a critical security challenge for the U.S.
In addition, another op-ed published in the Washington Post, Oct. 7, insisted that the U.S. support South Korea if the latter decides to pursue its own nuclear weapons, an argument against the U.S. government's nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
"In the event of war, leaders in Pyongyang would have powerful incentives to use nuclear weapons to stalemate South Korea's conventional military superiority. Should the United States retaliate, the American homeland would become a target," Dartmouth College professors Jennifer Lind and Daryl Press, wrote.
They said, if war breaks out, South Korea can't be sure that its U.S. ally would rush to aid Seoul when its own survival is threatened.
"A South Korean nuclear arsenal is not what Washington prefers ― indeed, it goes against a core U.S. policy of preventing nuclear spread. But it might be the best course given the weakened foundation of the alliance. If Seoul decides to take this step, the United States should focus blame where it belongs ― on Pyongyang's illegal nuclear program ― and render political support to a valued ally," they concluded.
Rep. Kim Tae-ho of the main opposition People Power Party said, Oct. 18, South Korea arming itself with nuclear weapons could be a measure to bring North Korea back to denuclearization talks.
"There are opinions in the U.S. as to whether it is necessary to develop independent nuclear weapons in order to maintain our sovereign independence from the threat of North Korea," Kim said during a National Assembly audit.
"We should boldly try a new approach."
 |
| Unification Minister Lee In-young speaks during a National Assembly audit, Oct. 18. Lee said South Korea obtaining nuclear armament capability was not a good way to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue. Joint Press Corps |
However, Unification Minister Lee In-young rejected the idea as unwise.
"It is not a wise solution because it gives mutual justification for the nuclear domino effect and North Korea's nuclear armament, and will bring about fallout such as international sanctions related to the NPT," Lee said.
Shin Beom-chul, director of the Center for Diplomacy and Security at the Korea Research Institute for National Strategy, said the South Korean government needs to use this opportunity to check on how its own nuclear deterrence can operate rather than seeking to go nuclear.
"The U.S. would not support South Korea building its own nuclear weapons, but comments from the U.S. mean the South Korean government, which has been negligent in enhancing its nuclear deterrence against North Korea's nuclear threat, needs to take the issue seriously and take relevant actions."
Park Won-gon, a professor of Ewha Womans University, said it would be impossible for the U.S. to buy into the theory of allowing its key allies to possess their own nuclear arsenals, or "offensive realism" that has been advocated since the 1980s.
"U.S. offensive realists have contended that their government should encourage key allies to acquire nuclear weapons as an absolute security guarantor given that it is viewed as nearly impossible to completely denuclearize North Korea; and the Washington Post article is in line with the theory," he said.
"However, it is not a feasible scenario for the U.S. government to allow South Korea to pursue nuclear armament as the five official nuclear-weapon states ― China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the U.S. ― would have to abandon their vested interests."
Park added: "In particular, China does not support the theory as it will assure that Taiwan will go nuclear."
