South Korea's nuclear weapons debate - a dinner party primer
Whether you agree, disagree, or just want to sound smarter at your next dinner party, here's the arguments to deploy.
We’ve all been there: trapped in a conversation with someone who thinks they’ve cracked the geopolitical code, loudly proclaiming why South Korea must or must not develop nuclear weapons. These self-proclaimed nuclear strategists—armed with half-baked arguments, a YouTube video’s worth of "expertise," and unshakable conviction—can dominate a room faster than a ballistic missile launch.
But fear not! The below will equip you with a balanced breakdown of reasons why South Korea might consider developing its own nuclear weapons—and the counterarguments to keep those know-it-alls in check. Whether you agree, disagree, or just want to sound smarter at your next dinner party, you’ll find all the logical, emotional, and downright outlandish points laid out here, ready for you to deploy. Why does South Korea need nuclear weapons?
Deterrence against North Korea
Reason: A nuclear arsenal would deter North Korea from attacking South Korea, reducing the threat of nuclear or conventional aggression and coercion.
Counter: North Korea might anticipate this and launch a pre-emptive strike or accelerate its own weapons development in response, triggering a dangerous and costly arms race when the money could be better spent on education, technology and AI, or the arts.
Reduced dependence on U.S. security umbrella
Reason: South Korea could ensure its security even if U.S. commitments falter or weaken in the future. The U.S. may not maintain its degree of influence in the region and may even withdraw.
Counter: Developing nuclear weapons could strain the U.S.-ROK alliance, potentially leading to a reduction in U.S. military support and an unwillingness to become involved in a situation in which it cannot control escalation.
Parity with regional powers
Reason: Matching the nuclear capabilities of North Korea, China, and Russia is essential to avoid being outmatched strategically.
Counter: South Korea’s nuclearization could provoke Japan to develop its own weapons, destabilizing the region further, and could provoke Taiwan to also develop a nuclear weapons capability leading to an immediate conflict.
Technological capability
Reason: South Korea has the advanced technology and expertise to quickly and efficiently develop nuclear weapons.
Counter: Such development would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), inviting global condemnation and sanctions, and South Korea has no access to the raw materials required. It thus has a long latency period to develop nuclear weapons which increases the chances for pre-emptive strike, disruption, and disruptive political debate.
Insurance against U.S. policy shifts
Reason: South Korea would not be left vulnerable if U.S. foreign policy shifts toward isolationism or reduced commitments.
Counter: South Korea risks losing the benefits of current U.S. military and diplomatic guarantees and potentially active disruption.
Self-reliance in defense
Reason: Developing an independent nuclear arsenal demonstrates South Korea’s commitment to defending itself without relying on external powers.
Counter: Nuclear weapons cannot address all threats, such as cyberattacks or conventional strikes, limiting their utility in comprehensive defense. South Korea as a middle power is best served by strengthening the U.S. commitment to its allies; strengthening multilateralism; and engaging with other middle powers.
Geopolitical leverage
Reason: Possessing nuclear weapons would give South Korea greater bargaining power in regional and global negotiations.
Counter: Other nations may refuse to engage diplomatically or impose sanctions, isolating South Korea on the global stage.
Strengthened alliance with the U.S.
Reason: A nuclear-armed South Korea could be seen as a more equal and capable partner, strengthening the U.S.-ROK alliance.
Counter: The U.S. may view South Korea’s nuclearization as an insult to its position in the region, weakening the alliance. Plus, wouldn’t China and North Korea then send nuclear missiles to South Korea instead of the U.S? What good does that do for South Koreans?
Counterbalance to Chinese hegemony
Reason: A nuclear South Korea could help counterbalance China’s growing influence and assertiveness in East Asia.
Counter: It could provoke China to intensify its military posture, increasing tensions and risks of conflict.
Safeguarding economic assets
Reason: A nuclear deterrent would protect South Korea’s vital economic hubs, such as Seoul and Incheon, from potential threats.
Counter: The presence of nuclear weapons might make these cities higher-value targets in the event of conflict.
Lessons from Ukraine
Reason: By maintaining its own arsenal, South Korea could avoid vulnerabilities similar to those Ukraine faced after relinquishing its nuclear weapons.
Counter: Unlike Ukraine, South Korea has a strong alliance with the U.S., which already provides a nuclear umbrella.
Preemptive strike capability
Reason: Nuclear weapons would allow South Korea a credible preemptive strike option against imminent threats from North Korea. South Korea already dominates the North in conventional capacity and removing the utility of their nuclear weapons restores this dominance.
Counter: Such a capability increases the likelihood of miscalculation, escalating conflicts unintentionally.
Regional stability
Reason: A credible nuclear deterrent could dissuade other powers from escalating conflicts, stabilizing East Asia. As Waltz famously stated “More may be better”.
Counter: The introduction of more nuclear weapons into the region might destabilize it further, encouraging proliferation. “More weapons, more chances for mistakes” is what Waltz should have said.
Public support for nuclear weapons
Reason: Growing domestic support for nuclear weapons aligns with democratic principles and reflects public concerns about security.
Counter: Public opinion is volatile and may shift against nuclearization if economic or diplomatic repercussions are severe. Further, should the public be trusted with such grave questions?
Defense against cyber and hybrid threats
Reason: Nuclear weapons could signal severe consequences for hybrid or cyberattacks targeting South Korea.
Counter: Nuclear weapons are not an effective deterrent for non-kinetic threats like cyberattacks, which require different countermeasures.
National unification
Reason: Securing nuclear weapons will lead to the removal of U.S. forces from South Korea. With the removal of U.S. forces, China will be willing to let North Korea collapse and the peninsula to unify as a neutral, autonomous, and fiercely independent state.
Counter: China may also want that unified, neutral, autonomous, and fiercely independent state to do everything it says - and there’d be no one around to stop it. You may think Korea would be like Cold War Sweden, Austria or Finland, but it may end up more like Cold War Poland or Ukraine.
Preventing a power vacuum
Reason: South Korea could prevent a regional power vacuum if the U.S. reduces its military presence in East Asia.
Counter: A power vacuum would likely be filled by China or other regional actors regardless of South Korea’s nuclear status.
National prestige
Reason: Nuclear weapons could boost national pride and reinforce South Korea’s global standing as a middle power.
Counter: Prestige gained through nuclearization could be outweighed by international condemnation and isolation.
International respect
Reason: Becoming a nuclear state might command greater respect in global organizations like the UN and G20.
Counter: Respect for nuclear states often comes with the burden of being seen as a destabilizing force, not a responsible power.
Symbol of national unity
Reason: Developing nuclear weapons could serve as a rallying point for national unity in the face of external threats.
Counter: Unity might fracture if segments of the population oppose nuclearization due to moral, economic, or diplomatic concerns.
In the nuclear weapons debate, the arguments fly fast and loose. At the moment, the debate is still at the dinner table or in the comments section of YouTube, and is spurred on by maverick politicians and spurious academic pundits who believe nukes give them the qualities of patriotism, sternness, and machismo that they lack in their very person. Unfortunately, without an underlying cultural “nuclear taboo”, before too long, these debates will become much more serious.