It is time to choose democracy or authoritarianism, community or chaos, love or hate

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol is intensifying the debate over whether his country should acquire nuclear weapons, a move that will change the US-South Korea alliance and regional security dynamics.

Yoon made global headlines last week when he suggested during a briefing that South Korea could acquire its own nuclear weapons if the security situation in North Korea deteriorates.

Yun’s comments came amid speculation about a worst-case scenario, and his aides were quick to say that South Korea was not reneging on its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Still, Yoon’s comment was unprecedented, at least for the period since South Korea became a democracy.

“This is a very important development,” said Cheong Seong-chan, a senior fellow at the Sejong Institute, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank outside Seoul. – So far, the South Korean government has not considered independent nuclear weapons, even as a “plan B”.

Yun has repeatedly spoken about nuclear weapons.

As a presidential candidate in late 2021, Yoon said he would consider redeploying America’s tactical nuclear weapons, which were phased out in the early 1990s. He also recently said that the United States and South Korea are discussing nuclear cooperation, which he believes will eventually have the same effect as NATO’s “nuclear defense exchange.”

Yun’s motives are, to some extent, simple.

Recently, North Korea has begun to engage in more threatening behavior while rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal. In comments released on New Year’s Day, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un vowed to “exponentially” increase his stockpile of nuclear warheads.

Many in Seoul believe that current US-South Korean alliance structures need to be strengthened to offset growing threats from North Korea. As part of this effort, they want a greater display of allied military power, including US nuclear capabilities.

More broadly, there is also concern about the longevity of Washington’s defense commitment to South Korea, particularly given the recent political upheaval in the US and the relative popularity of foreign policy ideas such as “America First”.

This dynamic helps explain why a growing number of scientists, former officials and former officials are now publicly supporting South Korea’s development of its own nuclear weapons.

What does Yun want?

Analysts, however, are divided on what Yoon is trying to achieve with the nuclear talks. Few believe that South Korea will actually pursue nuclear weapons, at least in the near future, given the enormous economic and security risks that would accompany such a move.

Instead, Yun could use the issue to send a tough message to North Korea or appease his conservative allies who support a more aggressive approach toward Pyongyang.

Some high-ranking former South Korean military officials have called on South Korea, already a major nuclear power producer, to expand its ability to acquire nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so. Some analysts suggest that Yoon’s comments may be aimed at making the idea more acceptable in the future.

But the most obvious explanation is that Yoon wants to publicly pressure the United States to provide stronger defense guarantees, according to Goh Myung-hyun, a research fellow at Seoul’s Asan Institute for Policy Studies.

“I think Yoon wants the Biden administration to propose further strengthening of extended deterrence,” Guo said. “He wants to emphasize how seriously he views the North Korean threat.”

In recent months, South Korea and the United States have agreed to increase joint military exercises and to deploy American bombers and aircraft carriers that can carry nuclear weapons more frequently to the region. Last week, South Korea’s military announced drills with the United States that would include a scenario of North Korea using nuclear weapons, although U.S. officials said the idea of ​​”joint nuclear exercises” was not under consideration.

For some residents of Seoul, these steps are not enough. They argue that South Korea should play a greater role in US nuclear planning. But South Korea may never be fully satisfied, as the US president ultimately decides whether US nuclear weapons will be used in any given scenario.

What’s next?

While Yoon may think that publicly discussing the nuclear option will force the United States to provide more security guarantees, “it will probably have the opposite effect of worsening relations,” according to Eric Brewer, a former White House National Security Council official.

Brewer, who now works at the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative, said the United States “should firmly close the door on any further talk about South Korea’s weapons and avoid public disputes with an ally.”

“The United States must make clear publicly that it will not support South Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, and that Washington and Seoul are focused on real and ongoing joint efforts to strengthen the alliance. They should also confirm privately that such comments on nuclear weapons development are counterproductive both to countering the threat posed by North Korea and to strengthening US-South Korea security cooperation and enhanced deterrence,” he added.

If Seoul tried to develop nuclear weapons, it could tear apart the U.S.-South Korea alliance, Brewer said.

“The idea that if South Korea can just convince the United States to allow it to get nuclear weapons, everything will be fine is wrong. It would still risk sanctions sought by Congress, a de facto end to international cooperation for its civilian nuclear energy program and a tough response from China,” he added.

But if North Korea continues its provocative missile launches and other weapons tests, Yun will continue to feel pressure to do more, said Guo of the Asan Institute.

“There are two ways of worsening the situation for South Korea. First, the threat of North Korea increases due to, say, an exponential increase in nuclear stockpiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles,” he said. “Second, the US response strategy remains inadequate.”

Lee Juhen contributed to the article.