Sadly, I missed the column when it came out, but Chosun Ilbo columnist Kim Dae-jung—considered one of Korea’s top conservative ideologues—wants Seoul to go nuclear:
Any map of Northeast Asia shows that three countries surrounding South Korea — North Korea, China and Russia — have nuclear weapons, and now there are signs that even Japan is inching toward arming itself with the bomb. A look at the countries involved in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program shows that five of them, except South Korea, are either nuclear armed or potentially armed. The nuclear map of Northeast Asia is changing now that Japan has revised laws in late June that suggest it wants to develop nuclear weapons too. South Korea alone in the region has no prospect of acquiring them.
Why does Seoul continue to adhere to what looks like an increasingly outdated peace and denuclearization policy? The goal of denuclearization in Northeast Asia has become unattainable. North Korea is not going to abandon its nuclear weapons even at the cost of its own collapse, since the regime saw clearly what happened to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi when he gave them up.
So sayeth The Shepherd, So sayeth The Flock!
How can we possibly consider ourselves an independent and sovereign state if we cannot acquire our own weapons within reasonable limits due to fears of foreign opposition? The nuclear map of Northeast Asia is being re-drawn, yet there is no place on that map for South Korea.
Read the rest on your own.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Read that article. It’s nationalism at it’s finest. Nukes do more harm then good for national security in small nations. The capability to create atom bombs only paints a target on your head if you don’t have the capability to defend against them. It gets kinda complex but ultimately boils down to if you have nukes, then only nukes will be used against you. If you don’t have nukes, then conventional forces may still be an option. Denying your enemy the option to use conventional forces only further strengthens their resolve to initiate a first strike nuclear option.
“The capability to create atom bombs only paints a target on your head if you don’t have the capability to defend against them. ”
That’s why you don’t declare yourself a nuclear power even if you have the capability. North Korea screwed up by doing the tests. South Korea isn’t that stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_research_programs
India and Pakistan (especially) hid their own capabilities for years. An even better example is Canada, which helped design the first atomic bomb in the 40′s, gave India some of the technology it needed to develop its own in the late 60′s early 70′s, had nuclear weapons “on loan” from the US up to the mid-80′s (the Canadian government won’t admit to anything after 1984) and continues to cooperate with the American nuclear weapons program to this day….But Canada is not a nuclear power nor does it have a nuclear weapons program…wink wink, nudge nudge.
Why “yes, yes, yes!”???
Why are you so horny for Korea to have nukes, and be allowed to have longer range missiles?
This country is too corrupt and too light on criminals to be allowed those privileges.
Ah, you mean to say “Seth” that South Korea is irresponsible. I wonder what you think of the PRC, which is very corrupt.
The US already allowed Japan to get ready to have nuke.
The United States deliberately allowed Japan access to the United States’ most secret nuclear weapons facilities while it transferred tens of billions of dollars worth of American tax paid research that has allowed Japan to amass 70 tons of weapons grade plutonium since the 1980s, a National Security News Service investigation reveals. These activities repeatedly violated U.S. laws regarding controls of sensitive nuclear materials that could be diverted to weapons programs in Japan. The NSNS investigation found that the United States has known about a secret nuclear weapons program in Japan since the 1960s, according to CIA reports.
http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html .
I’d prefer no nuke in Korean peninsula and think it would be enough to be under the nuclear umbrella of the US. However, if the US military is ready to leave Korea, that would make the story different.
The second paragraph should be in quote.
Kim’s reference to “fears of foreign opposition” is a barely disguised reference to the United States, and yet another example of how Korean conservatives have their own anti-American sentiments all pent up and ready to explode.
To which I say, fine, under the non-negotiable condition that no American troops be placed in a country where they are subject to a nuclear arsenal not controlled by the United States.
Korea cannot have it both ways. If it wants the U.S. security umbrella, then it needs to forgo its own nuclear weapons. If it wants nuclear weapons that badly, then it can also provide for the rest of its own defense and stop asking American taxpayers to pay for it.
(And, yes, this goes for Japan too.)
Kim’s a sharp guy, but he needs to explain to his readers the full repercussions for Korea of going nuclear.
DLB
“…Chosun Ilbo columnist Kim Dae-jung…”
Kim spells his name:
Kim Dae-joong
Sorry for nitpicking (again).
I agree fully with Barch.
@7
That’s the idea, ain’t it? If SK obtained nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t need to “protect” Korea anymore because they can then wave their nukes to keep the Chicoms (among others) away. We can then just trade with SK and share intels when appropriate. Sounds like a win-win to me.
I agree it’s a win-win game. S. Korea could choose not to be involved in the rivalry between the US and China. Let the US and Japan fight against China, whilst S. Korea keep her neutrality. That sounds a fascinating idea.
Sure it can have it both ways. You didn’t see the US lift its security umbrella from Britain, France and Israel when they went nuclear, did you?
Nuclear Weapons?
How long have you been here?
This is a great place, but not exactly even tempered and rational.
There would be discussions on bombing the home nation of any referee involved in Korea’s sporting loss
Huh? I know of no American combat troops in any of those countries, and I specifically referenced American troops.
England does, however, have a small number of American Navy and Air Force personnel, so I guess that technically counts.
DLB
The US should be removing ground troops from Korea regardless of whether it develops nukes or not. But the subject of security guarantees is quite different. While there are no “combat troops” (I’m assuming we’re talking about ground troops) in either the UK or France, both receive US security guarantees through the NATO alliance. The US doesn’t have a formal defense agreement with Israel, but everyone knows what the score is there.
And don’t even get me started on Pakistan.
Does this impinge on the competitiveness of the civilian nuclear industry? I’ve heard something to that effect that the restrictions in place by agreement with the US such as no reprocessing is a handicap to the civilian nuclear industry in Korea.
@#1 Nukes allow small nations to “draw even” with the larger nations. Take for example Israel going nuclear enables them to “deter” other countries in the region especially since it is surrounded by Arab countries who historically felt that Israel shouldn’t exist.
Let South Korea have nukes, but please Lord take Pakistan’s and India’s away.
@#17,
You won’t be able to take India’s away until you take China’s. If you can’t take India’s then you can’t take Pakistan’s either.
“Nukes allow small nations to “draw even” with the larger nations. Take for example Israel going nuclear enables them to “deter” other countries in the region especially since it is surrounded by Arab countries who historically felt that Israel shouldn’t exist”
Popular misconception, it doesn’t work that way.
A nuclear armed country can never be beaten. Tanks will never roll down the streets of it’s capitol. It’s citizens will never be subjugated by an aggressive force. These are the benefits that are usually pursued. If their on the losing side of any conflict they can just toss their nukes to win. It’s not until after a small country has acquired nukes that reality sets it.
If the country has nukes, and those nukes are used as a deterrent, then any aggressive nation must first deal with those nukes prior to engaging in conflict. This means an aggressive nation won’t wait to use their own nukes, they will open with them in an attempt to utterly destroy the defending nations fighting capability. So while a small nuclear armed country can not be beaten they can be annihilated. No matter how the cards fall, after the nuclear exchange that small country will not resemble what it was prior to the nuclear exchange. It’s very culture and national self image will be utterly destroyed and replaced with something very different. It’s citizens won’t be subjugated because it’s all they can do just to survive from day to day. Look at the effect that just two bombs had on Japan, now imagine what dozens if not a hundred or more would do to a country’s culture and self image.
Larger wealthy nations can spend the money to develop defense systems capable of blunting and confusing an aggressor nations nuclear first strike options. Larger nations can also afford to develop nuclear SSBNs (not just nuke missiles but miniature nuke power plants), that gives those nations a second strike capability, making them much more dangerous to deal with on a nuclear scale.
Finally, the small nation soon realizes the strategic situation those nukes put them in. They are forced to initiate first strike on potentially aggressor nations before those nations can initiate on them. Of course everyone else knows this already and it becomes a big Mexican standoff where everyone is trying to guess who’s gonna pull the trigger first. You end up being very careful what you say on national TV, you don’t want to give anyone the idea that your about to launch (they would try to launch first).
On the other hand, if the smaller nation would of never developed nuclear weapons, then they wouldn’t come into the picture and everyone would ignore them. Then your talking a typical force on force conventional war of tanks, planes, bombs and bullets. You can be beat, you can lose territory and be forced into bad treaties, but at least you keep your national culture and identity.
If people want I can post links to some short essays on conducting nuclear war, written by a retired nuclear target analyst (the guys who plan out which things to blow up with nuclear weapons). It will radically change your perspective in regards to nukes and their effect on nations.
Redwhitedude,
SK doesn’t have the balls to nuke anyone even if they had one gazillion nukes. Come on.
Does anyone, in this day and age?
@iMe,
who says to actually use nukes. Nukes are more political tools, it gives a country a sense of drawing level with other nuclear states. It serves as a deterrent primarily. It would be foolish to actually use them. Just look at the cold war they did their purpose of deterring both sides.
sorry Redwhitedude. my comment was directed at Waygoogin.
#19: Paladin: Please provide a link. Sounds interesting.
I once read Japan could have 80 nukes within a month if they wanted to. If South Korea goes that way, guess who reciprocates?
iMe #20,
the comment was directed at me.
#24,
Guys name was Stuart Slade
The older links are down right now so this is the best I can provide.
https://gist.github.com/141611
It used to be located on the mac homepage site, don’t know if it’s been moved or not.
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_103.html
First one is about the political implications of having nukes. Second one is about nuclear targets, how their selected and how effective nukes actually are (concrete is really resistant to nukes btw). Last one is a bit of theory on how a post-nuclear confrontation could be handled (nuclear WWIII), its not pretty.
#24,
Nukes in general are bad, their just more bad for smaller nations without the economic ability to deal with all the consequences of being a nuclear armed nation. This fact is compounded by all the incredibly wrong information in the movies and media in general.
Most thinking is “one per city”, yet that wouldn’t even be enough to scratch most modern city’s. Concrete is very effective at channeling and repulsing the three primary sources of damage with nukes (heat / light / pressure). You get a football field sized crater and a bunch of damaged buildings nearby. Otherwise most damage was psychological as people no longer feel safe in that city.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }