As to the benefits of a nuclear submarine, it has accurately been expressed before that diesel-electric propulsion is quieter than nuclear and that the benefits relate to range, speed, flexibility and time on station. All of these factors are essential for USN power projection, but of less importance for regional security. For the ROKN, the major benefit I can see for nuclear power is time on station. This would allow them to place a fully armed multi-sensor surveilance platform wherever they felt necessary for as long as the food holds out. In the event of international tensions, being able to stay on the line indefinitely has its advantages.

Having nuclear submarines is important for their nation if they want to be less dependant on others. Unfortunately, the cost of nuclear-powered boats is far greater than that of normal ones. Then, also, their primary design task is important. Are these anti-ship submarines or ballistic missile submarines? I’m not up to snuff on the details and specifications of SoKor’s long range missiles, but if they are not of extreme range then the range of the boat is a big concern. Perhaps they want to be able to drop missiles in the capitals of Japan, China, or NoKor, and be able to prove and openly proclaim this as a detterant to hostile action. That and the fact that ships require ports. Nuclear powered vessels can operate for an extended period (months, even) without returning to port. COnventional vessels do not have such capabilities. SoKor strategists may believe that a likely attack by a hostile neighbor would (in the early hours of an attack) cripple the ports that support their military vessels. In this case, nuclear powered subs would be essential, as they would be able to reply in like kind for a long time before having to return home. With the proper allies or ship deployments ahead of time, such vessels could be re-armed at sea and fight for extended durations.

All this is speculation, but there are many reasons why they may be interested in nuclear submarine capability. Then there are the aforementioned ‘prestige’ reasons. I don’t know the motivations behind their higher-ups, but I’m pretty sure they have a good reason for what they are doing, even if their attempts to keep it secret have failed miserably.

Charles, I would love to comment on your site, but it will not accept my information.

Next, a comment on your comment. With the South Korean aliances, I can’t see them having difficulty in obtaining the required amount of fuel.

We can and should provide long range air and naval support (to include nuclear submarines), if you sincerely want to continue the alliance. We have them already; you should use your defense expenditures for the upgrade of conventional ground forces, and local air and naval forces).

However, if you want to provide yourself nuclear powered submarines for prestige reasons, then be my guest. In that case nuclear support from the U.S will no longer be needed; we can end our alliance with you, and you can assume your rightful “place in the sun” as a major player in NE Asia.

I can’t wait to congratulate you on that day. I’ll be careful to do so from a distance, of course.

Check me on this, but my impression was that nuclear powerplants, as a rule, have a larger acoustic signature than comparable non-nuclear powerplants. The major rationale for nuclear propulsion is range, not stealthiness.

So is South Korea trying to drop its previous emphasis on self-defense in favor of a power projection role?

I think that is the money quote from the article and it brings me to wonder why in the world Korea would want to build nuclear submarines? Is Korea now planning to increase its military presence beyond the region? Is it just a pride issue? The reason I ask is because it is hard to see it as an issue of national defense.

If Korea is basing this upon defense, the billions of dollars it takes to build a nuclear submarine would be better spent on other military items. Diesel / Electric subs, patrol boats, aircraft and other items.