The Need for South Korea to Go Nuclear: An Interview with Dr. Seong-Chang Cheong
"When every neighboring country is building its military threat, it is irresponsible to say that South Korea should restrain itself."
Dr. Seong-Chang Cheong is the Director of the Department of Reunification Strategy Studies at the Sejong Institute and a leading advocate for South Korea to develop an indigenous nuclear program. I have published his papers here before. I interviewed him during my recent trip to Seoul.
The following is a condensed version of my interview:
MB: The U.S. sent a nuclear-powered guided missile submarine (SSGN) to dock in Busan in June. Does that send a reassuring signal?
SCC: The nuclear sub is a strong signal, but it doesn't solve the underlying issue. Will the U.S. risk Los Angeles for Seoul? It is hard to believe with confidence. The U.S. has troops in South Korea now, but they had troops fighting in Vietnam. They were fighting in Afghanistan for two decades. When they withdrew in 2021, it was a chaotic exit, and the Taliban took over. Koreans still fear something like Vietnam or Afghanistan being repeated.
How seriously would you assess the risk of a North Korean nuclear attack?
I think the chance that North Korea uses nuclear weapons is low. But I think there is a chance that a small conflict could escalate. The Yoon government is allowing activists to send balloons to North Korea. North Korea considers those balloons a threat to its national security and has said they might shoot them down. There are situations where North Korea could fire shots that end up in South Korea.
If they get into a conflict, both sides would like to escalate. Let's take a hypothetical: If North Korea fires three shots that end up landing in South Korea, South Korea will fire 30 back. And if South Korea fires 30 bullets into North Korea, North Korea will fire 300 back.
Because North Korea's conventional weapons are inferior to South Korea's, the possibility that North Korea uses tactical nuclear weapons is high. And if the weapons do not harm U.S. Forces Korea, the American response will be limited.
Where would be most at risk from a potential North Korean attack?
North Korea has a weak air force, so they would target air bases first.
If I was Kim Jong-un, and if I had to use nuclear weapons against South Korea, I would want to use a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP) to neutralize major facilities.
Would South Korea having nuclear weapons make the situation more dangerous?
South Korea having nuclear weapons would achieve a balance of threat on the peninsula. When North Korea has nuclear weapons and South Korea doesn't but North Korea knows they have weaker conventional weapons, that is the most unstable situation.
In the case of India and Pakistan, there have been few conflicts between the two sides since they developed nuclear weapons. The conflicts they did have were localized and more constrained in nature. India has been more constrained in its responses to Pakistani terrorism and provocations. There has been no war between two nuclear-armed nations in history. And the U.S. and the world accepted India and Pakistan as nuclear powers.
South Korea faces the greatest threat of any country on earth. We are mostly concerned about North Korea's nuclear program, but China's nuclear threat is also growing. Their nuclear stockpile will increase to 1,500 [by 2035]. Russia has nukes. When every neighboring country is building its military threat, it is irresponsible to say that South Korea should restrain itself.
Could South Korea's possession of nuclear weapons help promote American security?
The age that the U.S. can manage security in the whole world is over. The balance of threat in Northeast Asia is leaning towards China, North Korea, and Russia. Instead of the U.S. countering Chinese influence alone, if the U.S., Korea, and Japan can work together, it would be positive for all sides. If South Korea has nuclear weapons, the U.S. will not have to focus as much attention on North Korea and could have more attention to focus elsewhere.
Would North Korea's nuclearization harm the U.S.-ROK alliance?
The U.S. is very popular in South Korea, so Koreans would still want to have an alliance. Koreans are feeling pressure from China, but Koreans prefer to align with the U.S. China has become less popular since Xi Jinping took power and became more authoritarian.
But I believe that in the current structure of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the ROK excessively relies on the U.S. The U.S. uses its power to constrain South Korea's actions, for example in the aftermath of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island.
South Korea ranks sixth in strength of its conventional weapons and has the tenth largest economy in the world. If we possessed nuclear weapons, we would be able to speak with the U.S. on an equal basis. There would still be a strong U.S.-ROK alliance, but the nature of the alliance would be more balanced.
Will South Korea push for nuclear weapons in the near future?
Nuclear armament is not possible in the 1-2 years. In the short term, I don't think it will happen. President Yoon talked about it early on, but he agreed very easily to the Washington Declaration and did not push hard for concessions at the summit with President Biden in Washington, DC. I question his commitment to pushing for nuclear weapons.
The next administration should work on pursuing nuclear weapons. We [Koreans] are not sure about what the results of the upcoming U.S. election will be. If Biden wins [and Yoon remains in power until 2027], he will continue to restrain South Korea from developing a nuclear program. But if Trump wins, South Korean support for domestic nuclear weapons will grow.
I'm not arguing we should start arming ourselves with nukes now. But we need to be prepared. As long as the security situation gets worse, it is inevitable that South Korea will develop nuclear weapons.
The most important thing now is modifying the U.S-ROK Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation so that South Korea can enrich its used uranium to the same level as Japan is allowed.
Best case and worse case scenarios?
The worst case scenario for South Korea is if the security situation worsens and Japan develops nuclear weapons on its own but South Korea is not ready at the time. South Korea should take the initiative to develop nukes at the same time as Japan. I believe that in that situation, the international community would share the same concerns, and I believe they would accept it.