Over at The Diplomat, Richard Weitz looks at US worries about the Korean nuclear program… the South Korean nuclear program. Here’s a taste:
Although few South Koreans currently harbour nuclear weapons ambitions—thanks in part to the enduring US military presence in Asia as well as the emergence of a democratic government and a vigorously free South Korean press that would make pursuing a clandestine nuclear programme difficult—these benign conditions could change during the next two decades when the new reactors and reprocessing technologies would become available.
More immediately though, South Korea’s use of reprocessing and enrichment would make it harder to deny North Korea the right to engage in comparable activities. In their 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, both Korean governments forswore uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. Although Pyongyang went on to violate this non-proliferation commitment (and many others besides), the United States and South Korea still aim to use the Six-Party Talks and other mechanisms to roll back the North’s nuclear programmes and restore the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear-weapons-free status.
You all know my position on the matter — nuclear proliferation in and of itself doesn’t scare me. I’ve never lost a night of sleep worrying about the British, French or Israeli nuclear arsenals. It proliferation to countries I don’t like that worries me, and they’ll develop nukes regardless of whether South Korea gets the bomb or not. Wietz rightly points out, “Of all the regions in the world, Asia is a particular proliferation concern since China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and the United States all have major nuclear weapons programmes, while Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea already have the industrial capacity and scientific-technical expertise to launch such programmes.” OK, but I look at that, and I see three countries I wish didn’t have nukes (China, Pakistan and North Korea… and you can throw Russia in there) but do and three prosperous democracies to which the US must now extend nuclear defense guarantees. I’m not sure what we get out of that, other than maybe the privilege of having to decide one day whether to nuke China to defend Taiwan.
On a related note, South Korea recently developed a cruise missile with a range of 1,500 km, putting North Korean nuclear and military sites in range. Wonderful, says the Marmot, but I won’t be impressed until the 300km range limit on South Korean ballistic missiles, imposed by bilateral agreement with the United States, is lifted.
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
Look at all the bad guys in Asia:
North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia.
They all have them.
Why can’t the good guys have them to protect themselves?
My point exactly.
Apparently there are folks at State that worry that we might, after all, be able to win a land war in Asia (hence preventing it from starting) if our allies are armed on par with our enemies…
You know, as much as it pains me to say this, i’m not sure China counts as a “bad guy” anymore. They have to0 much to lose if they involve themselves in any modern military conflict(if they are the aggressors). If anything, they are involved in global trade wars that are not exactly what i consider fair
Everyone allows the free market to determine currency exchange rates except China. The economic ripple effect from this is HUGE. They are going to conquer Taiwan slooooowly using trade. Or they’re sure going to try.
They are mostly interested in stability because that is in their interests.
From their point of view, they may feel that they have no choice but to prop up the Norks to maintain regional stability. A desperate KJI would make any neighboring country nervous.
It really is a matter of perspective. Everyone’s just looking out for their own interests. The exception is countries where dictators rule and the leaders look out for themselves and not the country as a whole.
From many people’s perspective, it’s we Americans that are the bad guys because even though we talk the talk, unfortunately, we are usually the military aggressors (for one reason or another). We tend to butt into any countries business that may affect us. (ie oil) Russia does the same thing.
Back to the main point, it does seem at times that it’s inevitable that South Korea will have nukes. They have all the resources, as does Japan. It’s just a matter of National will. The only thing stopping them is the US because it’s in our interests to maintain stability in the region as well.
In this, China agrees with the US.
Even countries like Pakistan aren’t really “bad”. The problem is that they have nukes and not the most stable government controlling those nukes. The US has a presence there as well as pumping a lot of money into the country….all for stability.
Any country that kills its citizens for switching to a different religion is a bad country. Period.
Granted I want everyone to believe what I do (and I want what I believe to be the right way); but this has got to be as fundamental as freedom of expression and the rest of our First Amendment. Assembly. Right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Not a good thing to test in many countries…
I am still totally agnostic on the question of South Korean nukes, but it does seem that there is still very little showing within the epistemic community that a SK nuclear capability would actually increase rather than decrease national security and regional stability. And that’s really the only question that needs to be answered.
One fall-out from the Cheonan incident is a real awakening among South Korean security analysists of the need to reassess the assumption that increased trade and investment between South Korea and China would have spill-over effects in the security realm, and specifically with China putting pressure on NK to start cooperating on regional and peninsular security issues. China’s unwillingness to pressure NK on its nuclear program was the first pillar of SK expectations to fall; China’s failure on the Cheonan incident is now the second.
Now, renewed talk of a SK nuclear deterent has put China on notice: get your act together on NK, or risk seeing SK (and inevitably Japan) go nuclear. We may be on the cusp of a new era away from two decades of post Cold War low risk, low cost foreign policy in the region toward a much higher risk, higher cost foreign policy, and it will be because of China’s failure to act as a genuine regional power.
And one guess where the U.S. will find itself at the end of the day.
DLB
Two points:
1. If I had to choose between force modernization (ending conscription, increasing conventional weaponry, training) and returning OPCON to the ROK, or nukes, I’d prefer it if Seoul spent its money on the former. In this light, I see nukes the way I see robots: it’s a magical fix for deeper problems.
2. I know Koehler has expressed his regard for Kenneth Waltz before on nukes and deterrence. But, Waltz failed to appreciate how the process of acquiring and accumulating a nuclear arsenal destabilizes deterrence relationships. The final situation, i.e., everyone with nukes, might be stable – as is the opposite situation, no nukes. But war could break out at any point as alliances break and strain.
As I’ve expressed before, I do not want to see East Asia armed up with nukes. Reasons as follows:
1. I think it could have repercussions that reach farther then East Asia. I believe it would spur on Iran to develop a nuclear program, as well as, oh, say, Mozambique, etc. This is what they mean when they talk about “proliferation.”
2. I do not want Japan to have nuclear weapons. Japan remains a U.S. ally for as long as it’s in their interests, and they would think nothing of breaking that alliance. Geopolitically, they are an island nation with very finite natural resources; they look outward to get what they need, via the purse or the sword.
3. Lest we forget, the MAD deterrence of the Cold War worked, but this system only has to fail once. Then it’s “game over” for everybody.
mr kohler, you are making a serious yet too common American mistake of seeing the world of GOOD vs EVIL. Except NK, China and pakistan and others are no more evil than a normal country. It has its bad moments and good moments, just like US.
It’s people who think the world is so simple, that misunderstand foreign policy. Watch out
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, you’re serious…
” I believe it would spur on Iran to develop a nuclear program”
I got news for you. They already have a nuclear program, and they’ll get the bomb whether South Korea gets one or not (this is immaterial).
@Johnjohn.jona
Oh gawd… not those stupid, simple Americans again. Glad we have thinkers like Johnjohn.jona to save us from our collective stupidity and help us to see how things really are.
Just kidding. Johnjohn.jona (WTF?), you are the one who seems hindered in reasonig by the way you quickly discounted/misunderstood Robert’s common sense analysis based on some anti-American perceptions you felt you should trumpet here.
I think what most of us (even some Americans) thought when we read Simple Robert’s good vs. evil analysis was that when he said GOOD, he meant on his side (or perhaps the side of the West, or the side that might stand to lose the most if there is further escalation and perhaps a nuclear bomb gets dropped or sold to terrorists) and EVIL meaning anyone who his side cannot trust. I assume despite his handicaps, Robert knows that there are plenty of people in Russia who think Russia is GOOD and the US is EVIL, and that it’s a matter of perspective.
And by the way, what is a “normal country,” and how do China or Pakistan join that club?
I happened to agree with you, but I really must insist that if you use the phrase “I got news for you,” you add either “pal,” “boss” or “chump” to effect the proper level of condescension. I think I read that in the Lonely Planet guide to American English.
‘Japan remains a U.S. ally for as long as it’s in their interests, and they would think nothing of breaking that alliance. Geopolitically, they are an island nation with very finite natural resources; they look outward to get what they need, via the purse or the sword.’
one of the top reasons sk needs nukes.
ps it’s f**king hard to stop smoking!
spoken like a true Korean.
But I disagree – it’s easy. I quit again just last night, and if I go out this weekend (which happens as reliably as the sun coming up), I’ll probably quit again before Monday.
lol, cmm. i have the urge right now but i keep telling myself no. wish me luck.
Pawi,
Not to sound like a pharmaceutical sales rep, but try Chantix. That stuff worked like a charm for me. I’ve tried every cigarette smoking cessation method under the sun: cold-turkey, gum, the patch, gum and the patch at the same time, herbal cigarettes, herbal cigarettes with gum and the patch at the same time, and Zyban. I did a cycle of Chantix starting in January and I haven’t looked back since. Side effects were mild, and the price—in Korea—wasn’t too bad (though not covered by National Insurance). Unlike the other stuff, I found that Chantix actually kills your cravings. It just blocks your desire to smoke: even going to bars or being around other smokers seemed to have to effect. Of course, those are my results, and every one will have different reactions. But if you can’t kick the habit cold-turkey or through OTC methods, look into Chantix. Good luck!
I’ll comment on nuclear proliferation shortly.
thank you, milton. i was thinking about chantix so it’s good to hear what you have to say. i’m gonna definately talk to my doc about it. take care.
Well, obviously I don’t consider a nuclear-armed Iran to be a foregone conclusion. I don’t think it’s at all too late to dissuade Iran from developing full nuclear weapons. However, this would require America doing more than just throwing up its hands and saying “Well, they’re gonna have ‘em anyway, so why bother?”
good luck pawi.
Would anyone believe me if I told you that my entire worksite down here in Suwon has become a strictly no-smoking area? …the entire several square kilometers of it? I wouldn’t have believed it even two years ago.
back on topic — I wish Israel would do something useful finally and do the West’s dirty work in Iran. Take Iran’s facilities out, with great fury.
[quote]I’ve never lost a night of sleep worrying about the … or Israeli nuclear arsenals. [/quote]
How hypocritical of you?
There’s no more dangerous country with nukes than the Jewish state of Israel. There’s no other country who continuously threatens their neighbors into smithereens than this Jewish state. The double-standard which you apply to Israel is really sickening.
And Israel gets a pass as a ‘good’ guy? Give me break!
Why do I get all the anti-Semites?
@ cmm:
thank you for your response. my response was actually about comment#1, and how mr kohler says on #2, “my point exactly.” this suggests he views geopolitics as a good vs evil game, which Americans can sometimes do. THat is why American people invade or lecture, yes? Corect me if im wrongl.
Listen please. If your #1 prioritiy as an American is to save money, then decreasing military presence in SK and JP makes great sense. BUt geopolitics is more than just $$$. America has strong military, economic, ands strategic interests on SK and JP, and if you care about preserving US’s great influence and #1 position, you must think beyond saving simple $$$ by saying Korean peninsular security should be almost all the responsibility of SK; also, you must rid of words like GOOD and EVIL. THis is a mistake. AN American mistake, too common.
I am welcome to your opinions.
PS: mr kohler, how do you reply to a comment with quoting? i cannot see the reply buttonl.
also, i dont see an edit button.
also, nice blog, i hope to continue to read it. Thank you!
I don’t agree with the position he takes, but there is nothing remotely anti-semitic about ##21 and 22.
Too much work.
I agree with Sperwer quite a bit in this case.
@cmm:
???
you are unable to defend your position? this is disappointing, but I understand.
also, I apologize for my bad spelling mistakes.
Dollars to donuts we’re dealing with an anti-Semite.
‘There’s no more dangerous country with nukes than the Jewish state of Israel. There’s no other country who continuously threatens their neighbors into smithereens than this Jewish state.’
the statement is true. there’s nothing anti semitic about that. israel is the new south africa. ain’t nothing anti semitic about that either.
There is nothing at all anti-Semitic about saying Israel is dangerous/irresponsible/excessively violent, if that’s what you believe. But what exactly was the point of saying “Jewish state” not once, but twice, if not to hint at some inherent trait in Judaism that makes Israelis more predisposed to violence?
Perhaps I should say “the government of Israel” instead of just Israel.
I don’t know about “vigorously free press”. I think they just answer to a different authority than the government.
I think so, too. Just not in the same way you’re thinking, I’d imagine.
israel is the new aparheid south africa.
I’ll say this for Israel. They are looking out for their interests and are trying to ensure their own survival and security. I don’t blame them for that.
Let’s face it, in their shoes, most gov’ts would do the same as they did or worse. They are no angels and there’s alot of blood on their hands.
BUT i reiterate, i don’t blame them for doing what they feel they must do.
oh yeah, Israel with nukes does make me a tad bit nervous. And i live in the states. They can be as fundamentalist as some of the more extreme Islamic nations.
Imagine how it makes Iranians feel. I don’t blame them for feeling that they need nukes as well. It’s “just” another arms race. Like the US and Russia. Like Pakistan and India. Like North Korea and now possibly South Korea? I don’t believe the threat of nuclear annihilation will ever disappear. Not until we nuke ourselves back into the stone age that is…..
Again, I agree. Just in a very different way.
I’m not going to fight you for the donuts, and your speculation may be right, but that’s all it is – mere speculation – on the available evidence; and jumping to that sort of conclusion on such basis is of a piece with the sort of thinking that underlies anti-semitism, indeed any kind of unfounded prejudice.
Fair enough. I guess it’s possible he simply believed me unaware that Israel is a Jewish state, and mentioned it — twice — for my own personal enlightenment.
Well, given that their led by a president who has threatened to wipe even a nuclear-armed Israel off the map, I don’t think the Israeli nuclear arsenal weighs very heavy in their thoughts. And that’s what makes me nervous about Iran in a way North Korea does not — I’m pretty certain Pyongyang isn’t suicidal, but Iran, I’m not so sure. MAD doesn’t work if assured destruction doesn’t sound so bad.
No, in this case, “good guys” and “bad guys” is simply euphemisms for “on our side” and “on the other side,” although in this case, yes, I would add that I think democratic and prosperous South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are “better” than North Korea, China and Pakistan.
Perhaps, but Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are proving that unless the nuclear powers are willing to ENFORCE a non-proliferation regime, those deterrence relationships are going to change regardless.
1. To repeat what cm said, Iran is developing a nuclear arsenal anyway;
2. A Japan willing to get what it needs via purse or sword is better than a Japan getting what it needs via our purse and sword;
3. Well, it’s “game over” for the countries getting nuked. But don’t diminish what nukes gave the world — 65 years so far without a Great Power war.
Both are among the biggest threats faced by the United States, but on the issue of “potential for national suicide,” I think North Korea comes out slightly ahead.
Iran’s government is a weird hodgepodge of competing forces—some of which are somewhat democratic—with different visions, differing levels of religiosity, and differing levels of control over the lever of power all united under the Supreme Leader, who is no Kim Jong Il. Khamenei does have to compromise with competing factions, and he is not a god-like figure: he can, in theory, be removed from power by the Assembly of Experts, led by pragmatist Hashemi Rafsanjani. Ahmadinijad, nutty as he is, does not control Iran’s military. The system may be borderline totaltarianism, but there are some checks and balances.
I would think that North Korea’s ultra-militaristic ultra-nationalistic ideological brainwashing and top down control of power would make them more susceptible to whims of one individual since there are no checks and balances. So if both Khamenei and KJI decided to destroy their respective countries in a nuclear holy war, I’d say KJI would be more likely.
the difference is that south africa had nothing close to something like AIPAC et al. israel has support in key power centers that south africa could never dreamed of having bro.
fwiw it’s not clear that he threatened to wipe Israel off the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_translation not saying he’s good or that i like him or nothing. just pointing this out.
No, he appeared to have said,
or according to MEMRI,
What’s more important, time or space? What are we arguing about again?
that’s not the same thing as “threatening to wipe israel off the map.”
Oy! Is it just me, or does it seem that lately every other discussion about North Korea winds up being about Israel?
Anyway, Robert, you’re a mensch for allowing these guys to remain on MH. A lesser man would have banned them. I say keep the debate open to allcomers and let the marketplace of ideas take care of their bankrupt notions.
However, about the whole anonymity thing….
DLB
Because you do not moderate your comments!
Criticizing Israel is automatically construed as “anti-semite?” How unfortunate! However, you did not refute my points:
1) Israel threatens its neighbors with its nuclear weapons.
2) Israel is the only country in ME with enough arsenals to destroy everybody.
3) Israel is the only county in the world, w/ this capability, who actually threatens to “NUKE” another country.
4) Israel is not really a ‘good’ guy that you like to portay as…
Wow, just amazing…. Robert, do you happen to be a Jewish-American from NY? You mentioned it when you first created your (old) blog. Feeling insecure?
When I was a school teacher, working with inner-city students, kids would say that Blacks can not be racists, because of who they are “black;” kind of like circular argument. The entire US media accepted this thought process. Jesse Jackson, Al Shapton and Jeremiah Wright get away with some terrible racist remarks because they are ‘Blacks.’
This similar thought process is very prevalent in the US as well. That because the Jews suffered during the Holocausts, they can’t possibly segregate, discriminate, terrorize, be racists, bulldoze homes, arrest people like SS gestapos in the middle of the night. Then, whenever somebody points out the evils commited by Israel, you get ad hominem thrown at you as ANTI-SEMITE,” nevermind the facts or the message. That Israel can’t possibly be a ‘bad’ guy who does ‘bad’ things.
Having volunteered to assist with both Arab and Christian Palestinians, I can tell you that what goes on in Gaza and its surroundings is much worse than the ’60 apartheid South Africa.
No Robert, I’m not ‘anti-semite.’ Rather, I’m anti-Zionist.
No. German-Irish Catholic. But even if I were, so what?
No, you don’t. You get called an ANTI-SEMITE for saying stuff like this: “There’s no more dangerous country with nukes than the Jewish state of Israel. There’s no other country who continuously threatens their neighbors into smithereens than this Jewish state. “
just because you do doesn’t mean it is bro. words like ‘anti-semite’ and ‘racist’ get thrown around for bogus reasons. is it anti-german or anti-korean to say ‘german state of gdr’ or ‘korean state of dprk’?
Pawi, try getting tear-gassed if you really want to stop smoking.
Worked for me.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
pawi if you wanna stop smoking try jenkem bro.
Gooseshit should be tear-gassed – CN – as a public sanitation measure.
You must log in to post a comment.