US help isn’t enough: South Korea wants its own nuclear weapons

[zincwarrior]

An interesting discussion in The Hill this morning. Essentially restating that South Korea desires it own nuclear deterrent, given north Korea's increasing nuclear capacity.
Thoughts? I personally am somewhat surprised SK and Japan do not have nuclear weapons at this point (especially SK). But I am not versed on the policies of why they don't.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4866273-south-korea-nuclear-weapons/

On Sept. 2, South Korea’s Kim Yong-hyun, at his confirmation hearing for defense minister, said he would be “open” to his country developing nuclear weapons.

“That is included among all possible options,” Kim announced.


Kim’s comment is nothing less than a public vote of no confidence in the U.S., the South’s protector for over seven decades.

The South Korean public certainly agrees with Kim. A Gallup Korea poll released in February shows that 72.8 percent of the population favored the possession of nukes.

Such a position is understandable. North Korea, separated from the South by the narrow strip of the Demilitarized Zone, today has, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, up to 50 nuclear weapons. Some believe the North has enough fissile material for 60 more.

 

[Allan]

No.

 

[Phys251]

An interesting discussion in The Hill this morning. Essentially restating that South Korea desires it own nuclear deterrent, given north Korea's increasing nuclear capacity.
Thoughts? I personally am somewhat surprised SK and Japan do not have nuclear weapons at this point (especially SK). But I am not versed on the policies of why they don't.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4866273-south-korea-nuclear-weapons/

South Korea is worried that tRump, who is a suck-up to dictators, might get back in. I can't blame them.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

An interesting discussion in The Hill this morning. Essentially restating that South Korea desires it own nuclear deterrent, given north Korea's increasing nuclear capacity.
Thoughts? I personally am somewhat surprised SK and Japan do not have nuclear weapons at this point (especially SK). But I am not versed on the policies of why they don't.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4866273-south-korea-nuclear-weapons/

The US has I believe pressured both countries not to produce nuclear weapons. Where the US basically promised that it would provide the nuclear shield for both.

The US has over the decades wanted to ensure few countries developed nuclear weapons. I expect South Africa dropped its program which I believe included building 6 nuclear weapon under extreme US pressure

 

[phoenix2020]

The reality is that no nuclear weapons state has had to endure a major invasion on its homeland by another nation state. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, Baby Bush would not have invaded. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded. Since India and Pakistan went public with nuclear arms, their frequent wars have been reduced to small border skirmishes. Time and time again, we see that nuclear weapons are in fact an effective deterrent against a third party nuclear-weapons state invading its neighbor.

South Korea is surrounded by nuclear weapons states. I'm sure it's well aware that if a neighbor invaded, the global community would not respond by counter-invading said nuclear-armed neighbor in the same way everybody is happy to send arms to Ukraine but no one is going to dare send its soldiers inside Russia's borders.

If I were South Korea, I'd be thinking hard about whether to become a nuclear weapons state.

 

[Phys251]

The reality is that no nuclear weapons state has had to endure a major invasion on its homeland by another nation state. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, Baby Bush would not have invaded. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded. Since India and Pakistan went public with nuclear arms, their frequent wars have been reduced to small border skirmishes. Time and time again, we see that nuclear weapons are in fact an effective deterrent against a third party nuclear-weapons state invading its neighbor.

South Korea is surrounded by nuclear weapons states. I'm sure it's well aware that if a neighbor invaded, the global community would not respond by counter-invading said nuclear-armed neighbor in the same way everybody is happy to send arms to Ukraine but no one is going to dare send its soldiers inside Russia's borders.

If I were South Korea, I'd be thinking hard about whether to become a nuclear weapons state.

I hate how accurate this is.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The reality is that no nuclear weapons state has had to endure a major invasion on its homeland by another nation state. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, Baby Bush would not have invaded. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded. Since India and Pakistan went public with nuclear arms, their frequent wars have been reduced to small border skirmishes. Time and time again, we see that nuclear weapons are in fact an effective deterrent against a third party nuclear-weapons state invading its neighbor.

South Korea is surrounded by nuclear weapons states. I'm sure it's well aware that if a neighbor invaded, the global community would not respond by counter-invading said nuclear-armed neighbor in the same way everybody is happy to send arms to Ukraine but no one is going to dare send its soldiers inside Russia's borders.

If I were South Korea, I'd be thinking hard about whether to become a nuclear weapons state.

Pakistan sort of invaded India in 1999, both at the time were nuclear states

 

[Allan]

The reality is that no nuclear weapons state has had to endure a major invasion on its homeland by another nation state. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, Baby Bush would not have invaded. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded. Since India and Pakistan went public with nuclear arms, their frequent wars have been reduced to small border skirmishes.

India and Pakistan have been close to nuclear war more than once (most recently in 2019) and it was only due to American diplomacy and pressure that it was avoided.

Both countries feel that they can win in a nuclear exchange.

Estimates are that the resulting nuclear winter would kill about 2 billion people.

 

[phoenix2020]

Pakistan sort of invaded India in 1999, both at the time were nuclear states

As compared to their three previous wars, this was most definitely closer to a "border skirmish" - heck, even Pakistan's Prime Minister at the time told his counterpart that he had been unaware of the precipitating incursion that was self-directed by two or three military "cronies".

 

[phoenix2020]

India and Pakistan have been close to nuclear war more than once (most recently in 2019) and it was only due to American diplomacy and pressure that it was avoided.

Both countries feel that they can win in a nuclear exchange.

Estimates are that the resulting nuclear winter would kill about 2 billion people.

No, India and Pakistan have not been close to nuclear war especially in 2019, any more than the United States and China have been "close to nuclear war" in the same time period. Media love to publish such sensationalist headlines because "How X and Y came close to killing 2 billion people!" creates a lot of clicks and provides fodder for a lot of opinion column authors, influencers and YouTubers to generate and secure more of that sweet, sweet advertising revenue.

I don't like nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong on that. However, so far the track record we as a species have established is, "nuclear weapons = you're safe; no-nuclear-weapons = your nuclear neighbor may invade you and no one is going to stop it." If we don't acknowledge that current reality and provide an alternative to it, I do believe we will see more nuclear weapons states pop up over time.

 

[phoenix2020]

I hate how accurate this is.

I don't like it either.

 

[Allan]

No, India and Pakistan have not been close to nuclear war especially in 2019, any more than the United States and China have been "close to nuclear war" in the same time period. Media love to publish such sensationalist headlines because "How X and Y came close to killing 2 billion people!" creates a lot of clicks and provides fodder for a lot of opinion column authors, influencers and YouTubers to generate and secure more of that sweet, sweet advertising revenue.

I don't like nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong on that. However, so far the track record we as a species have established is, "nuclear weapons = you're safe; no-nuclear-weapons = your nuclear neighbor may invade you and no one is going to stop it." If we don't acknowledge that current reality and provide an alternative to it, I do believe we will see more nuclear weapons states pop up over time.

According to Bill Clinton and Mike Pompeo US diplomacy averted nuclear war twice - 1999 and 2019.

I expect those two would know.

 

[phoenix2020]

According to Bill Clinton and Mike Pompeo US diplomacy averted nuclear war twice - 1999 and 2019.

I expect those two would know.

In 1999, with the Kargil war in its final days and Pakistani forces nearly driven back to the LOC, Clinton called Sharif to demand he withdraw his remaining forces. This was a face-saving move for Pakistan because "Americans demanded we withdraw" was more palatable than "India defeated us convincingly" - and Clinton later said the real credit went not to the US nor Pakistan but to India for choosing to keep the conflict focused to the LOC and not taking any steps to cross the line themselves and aggravate the conflict. So, no, other than Clinton telling one of the countries he sold arms to stop using those arms to invade another country when the war was nearly done, he did not "avert" nuclear war. If you claim otherwise then you need to prove that without him calling Sharif, nuclear war was inevitable, since otherwise it is not true that US diplomacy "averted" certain nuclear war.

I am aware of zero evidence that in 2019 the world faced inevitable nuclear holocaust that would have resulted in the death of 2 billion people were it not for the timely intervention of US diplomacy. I remember there was the whole Brexit thing, and I think that was the year those Fyre Festival documentaries came out. We imaged a black hole, had that whole college admissions scandal, and oh yeah Avengers Endgame. But, no, no inevitable nuclear war were it not for Mike Pompeo, that I am aware of. This sounds like perhaps some article was written by a 20-something to drive clicks and boost ad revenue, and a bunch of people read it?

 

[Allan]

In 1999, with the Kargil war in its final days and Pakistani forces nearly driven back to the LOC, Clinton called Sharif to demand he withdraw his remaining forces. This was a face-saving move for Pakistan because "Americans demanded we withdraw" was more palatable than "India defeated us convincingly" - and Clinton later said the real credit went not to the US nor Pakistan but to India for choosing to keep the conflict focused to the LOC and not taking any steps to cross the line themselves and aggravate the conflict. So, no, other than Clinton telling one of the countries he sold arms to stop using those arms to invade another country when the war was nearly done, he did not "avert" nuclear war. If you claim otherwise then you need to prove that without him calling Sharif, nuclear war was inevitable.

I am aware of zero evidence that in 2019 the world faced inevitable nuclear holocaust that would have resulted in the death of 2 billion people were it not for the timely intervention of US diplomacy. I remember there was the whole Brexit thing, and I think that was the year those Fire Festival documentaries came out. We imaged a black hole, had that whole college admissions scandal, and oh yeah Avengers Endgame. But, no, no inevitable nuclear war were it not for Mike Pompeo, that I am aware of. This sounds like perhaps some article was written by a 20-something to drive clicks and boost ad revenue, and a bunch of people read it?

The article was in reference to Pompeo's comments, not click bait.

 

[phoenix2020]

The article was in reference to Pompeo's comments, not click bait.

Hopefully the article generated a lot of clicks and sweet advertising revenue and earned its author a cool $30 commission for claiming that twice the world was on the inevitable and irreversible brink of 2 billion people being killed in nuclear holocaust, if not for the urgent and timely intervention of Bill Clinton and Mike Pompeo, including once in 2019 when near as I can tell nothing of note actually happened other than Avengers Endgame.

Would you happen to have a link to this article? I'd love to read the bio of the author.

 

[Roadvirus]

An interesting discussion in The Hill this morning. Essentially restating that South Korea desires it own nuclear deterrent, given north Korea's increasing nuclear capacity.
Thoughts? I personally am somewhat surprised SK and Japan do not have nuclear weapons at this point (especially SK). But I am not versed on the policies of why they don't.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4866273-south-korea-nuclear-weapons/

Please no. We want to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, not make it more nuclearized.

Imagine China's response if SK does this....

 

[phoenix2020]

Please no. We want to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, not make it more nuclearized.

Imagine China's response if SK does this....

What would their response be? Build more nuclear weapons? Complain about how South Korea hurt the feelings of the Chinese people?

 

[Roadvirus]

What would their response be? Build more nuclear weapons? Complain about how South Korea hurt the feelings of the Chinese people?

Probably support more NK belligerence.

 

[joluoto]

The US has I believe pressured both countries not to produce nuclear weapons. Where the US basically promised that it would provide the nuclear shield for both.

The US has over the decades wanted to ensure few countries developed nuclear weapons. I expect South Africa dropped its program which I believe included building 6 nuclear weapon under extreme US pressure

That, and because it was an Apartheid era project ANC was always against.

 

[reinaert]

It's fair to conclude SK and Japan could spin up nuclear weapons rather easily?

 

[joluoto]

It's fair to conclude SK and Japan could spin up nuclear weapons rather easily?

Probably. Japan would never do it of course, their ideological opposition to nuclear weapons is huge and understandable.

 

[Allan]

It's fair to conclude SK and Japan could spin up nuclear weapons rather easily?

Known as "threshold countries" SK, Japan, Germany, Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan and Australia are the countries able to most quickly develop nuclear weapons.