According to a recent study by the Chey Institute of Advanced Studies, a South Korea based think tank, 76% of South Koreans support the idea of nuclear proliferation

 by the Chey Institute of Advanced Studies, a South Korea based think tank, 76% of South Koreans support the idea of nuclear proliferation as a way of countering the growing North Korean nuclear threat. This staggering statistic has followed recent calls for the presence of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula arising from various sections of the South Korean and United States governments. While South Korea's concerns are rooted in reality, nuclear armament as a way of addressing the North Korean threat can lead to disastrous consequences, not just for Northeast Asia but the entire world.

Recent events on the Korean Peninsula have been unprecedented in nature. In 2022 alone, North Korea 

 around 70 missiles including eight intercontinental ballistic missiles, stepping up efforts to develop long range nuclear weapons to undermine the U.S.-South Korea joint defence systems. The recent high volume of missile tests from the North have been met with retaliatory measures from the United States and South Korea. In August 2022, the US and South Korea began their 

 in recent years in an effort to increase readiness in the event of a North Korean nuclear test. In an effort to reinforce the security of its allies, the United States also participated in a series of 

 with Japan and South Korea. However, it appears that these military drills have only exacerbated the situation. North Korea has considerably accelerated its missile testing since the commencement of the military exercises, putting regional security and stability in jeopardy. Another aim of the drills, to put pressure on North Korea to enter into denuclearisation talks, has also failed. North Korea has persisted on its nuclear proliferation route, hinting at the prospect of a seventh 

The ever growing hostilities on the Korean Peninsula have been further propelled by the possibilities of deployment and development of nuclear weapons to aid Seoul as a deterrent against Pyongyang’s nuclear threats. Recently, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, in a Defence and Foreign ministry joint policy briefing, 

 that South Korea would consider building its own nuclear weapons and look towards playing a more active role in the redeployment and management of US’ nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. This statement comes as a sharp shift from the policies of previous South Korean administrations with respect to the redeployment of US’ nuclear assets which were withdrawn in 1991 following global nuclear arms reduction measures. President Yoon has been a vocal supporter of redeploying the US’ strategic assets, previously 

 the idea in the run up to his election campaign. While keeping the development of indigenous nuclear weapons as a policy option, President Yoon has reiterated South Korea’s policy of working closely with the United States.

The United States, in an attempt to reassure South Korea over its nuclear and strategic commitment, has 

 to expand and elevate joint exercises and military training. In Seoul for bilateral defence ministerial talks, the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin 

 United States’ commitment to South Korea as “ironclad” at a time of heightened tensions. 

While South Korea has decided to strengthen its alliance with the United States as a countermeasure against North Korea’s aggression for now, the growing support for nuclear proliferation has led to various strategists making a case for a South Korean indigenous nuclear proliferation programme. However, the feasibility of such a measure must be analysed as it can lead to disastrous consequences which can potentially alter security relations and seriously jeopardise peace and stability in the Northeast Asian region. 

Much like the ramped up joint military exercises, a nuclear proliferation programme is set to be met with 

 from the North. North Korea views the US-ROK alliance in the region as a grave security threat to its survival interests. This threat perception stems from the devastation it faced during the Korean War and is further amplified by the joint bilateral and trilateral military exercises that the United States and its allies have carried out in the region. 

Historically, the issue of nuclear proliferation has been a bone of contention between the two Koreas. During the dictatorial rule of military leader Park Chung hee, South Korea embarked on an expensive and highly secret nuclear proliferation programme to reprocess plutonium into weapon grade fuel and build atomic weapons. However, this programme was foiled due to an intervention from the Kissinger administration seeking to control heightening Cold War tensions. This event greatly directed North Korea's nuclear ambitions as it identified a potential South Korean nuclear programme as a threat and sought to preempt its superiority. 

Even Inter-Korean dialogues under subsequent administrations such as the 

 (1998) deliberately kept the nuclear issue out of discussions in order to reach consensus on a peaceful regime. However, while both the countries have signed joint communiques calling for an end to nuclear weapons on the Peninsula, little has come out of these agreements. 

Hence, a nuclear proliferation programme or redeployment of US nuclear assets provides no certainty for peace to be established amidst all the hostilities. The subsequent security dilemma emerging from such a policy has the potential of pushing the Korean Peninsula into an era of further uncertainty. 

North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme emerged as a response to the growing survival threat it faced in the 1980s owing to the collapse of the communist bloc and the threat posed by the US' nuclear umbrella over the South. This threat perception has continued in the form of sanctions imposed against North Korea and the continuing military exercises in the region. While nuclear weapons have become intrinsic to North Korea’s foreign policy assessments, their use has been limited to that of a signalling tool, often reduced to mere rhetoric. 

Signalling presents a way to show an adversary the strength of one’s resolve. States tend to signal their resolve in a bid to gain desired outcomes. The North Korean threats are similar in this respect. By using the threat of nuclear weapons, the North Korean leadership seeks to extract favourable outcomes. In the past, North Korea has been successful in bringing the United States and the international community to the negotiation table while extracting desired results in the process. The Agreed Framework (1994), the Six Party Talks (2003), the Panmunjom Declaration (2018) and the Hanoi Summit (2019) are a testament to this nuclear diplomacy. North Korea’s threat perception is survival in nature and so are its desires and demands. Hence, for establishing a peaceful regime on the Peninsula, an aggressive and retaliatory policy must be given up in favour of a policy rooted in reconciliation and dialogue. The highest points in Inter-Korean relations have been reached under administrations which have favoured dialogue and diplomacy over the use of coercive measures in dealing with North Korea. Former South Korean President Kim Dae jung's Sunshine Policy, as well as former President Moon Jae-in's reconciliatory policies demonstrate that peaceful solutions on the Korean Peninsula are achievable if reconciliation and dialogue take precedence over distrust and coercion.

Development or deployment of nuclear weapons in the current state of affairs will lead to further flaring of hostilities between the two Koreas. Such an arrangement could push North Korea towards conducting its seventh nuclear test. A successful nuclear test can enable North Korea to further miniaturise its nuclear warheads, which can be critical in developing a tactical nuclear arsenal. Such a scenario will have a significant impact on the security of all the actors in the Northeast Asian region, significantly altering security relations. The US-ROK alliance needs to address North Korea’s growing threat perceptions ensuring that its survival interests are not threatened. While the dearth of trust and cooperation repels both parties from dialogue and discussion, the common desire for peace and stability must become the foundation for establishing fruitful relations for a better future.

Fighting fire with fire: Can Nuclear Proliferation address South Korea's concerns

2 Comments