Yes, Washington Would (and Should) Sacrifice L.A. for Seoul
Allowing North Korea to kill 28,500 US soldiers without a response would do more harm to the US than using its nuclear weapons to deter a North Korean attack.
This year, there has been a lot of discussion about the prospect of South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons program. Majorities of Koreans—as many as three-quarters—support having their own nuclear program. Dr. Seong-Chang Cheong of the Sejong Institute has made his case here at the US-Korea Policy Project.
One reason is mistrust of the United States. Yi Chun-geun asked, “‘Is the US willing to sacrifice Los Angeles for Seoul?’ Americans will not fool themselves into answering ‘yes.’”
Trust in the US nuclear umbrella is shaky amongst Koreans. To assuage those fears and solve the problem—at least for the remained of Yoon Suk-yeol’s term—President Biden and President Yoon agreed to the Washington Declaration this week. The declaration states that “the ROK has full confidence in U.S. extended deterrence” and that “President Yoon reaffirmed the ROK’s longstanding commitment to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” One of the reassurances the US gave to Korea is that American nuclear-armed submarines will routinely stop at Korean ports.
Yoon could have asked Biden for more at the summit. He could have, for example, demanded the right to process spent nuclear fuel to the same level as Japan. This may be a topic for a future newsletter. First, I will argue…
The US Would “Sacrifice LA for Seoul”
The US would certainly use its conventional weapons to defend its soldiers, citizens, and the citizens of its ally if North Korea attacked Korea with conventional force, and the US would use nuclear weapons if North Korea struck with nuclear force.
The question should be asked like this: Would the US give Russia a green light to nuke Ukraine? Would the US give China a green light to invade Taiwan? Would the US allow North Korea to kill 28,500 US soldiers?
I also don’t think the US would like to see North Korea kill millions of ROK citizens, but the premise of the “sacrifice LA for Seoul” question is fixed, that the US wouldn’t care—not enough. But even if you put aside the impact a North Korean attack would have on South Korea and only focus on America’s direct national self-interest, the US has every reason to deter North Korea and others from launching nuclear strikes.
North Korea would target not just Seoul but also US Air Force bases in Osan and Kunsan and Army bases in Pyeongtaek, Daegu, and the Seoul area, and possibly US bases in Japan. When American soldiers die, the US would have to respond to enact revenge and show other adversaries that they will not let them attack the US and come away unscathed. This is the value of the tripwire.
But what if the US withdraws troops from Korea in the future? The fears about abandonment are not just an issue now. History is long, and American politics is chaotic.
The Consequences of the US Refusing to Use Nuclear Umbrella
The US as a country and American presidents as politically-motivated individuals both have interests in using its nuclear arsenal to deter countries around the world. The US is providing weapons and support to Ukraine to help them deter Russia’s invasion. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, but that seems like an empty threat, because Russia knows that the US, UK, and France have nuclear weapons.
A Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine would put NATO member countries like Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Finland on edge. The US and all other NATO members are obligated to defend them if they are attacked. A Russian nuclear strike would cause large scale physical damage and political damage to American and European security institutions if there is no response. All the Asian countries the US provides with security assurances would also not trust the US, and America’s enemies would see that they could get away with anything.
Ultimately, failing to “sacrifice LA” would just create a bigger and more costly crisis for the US and the world.
US President Has Motive to Defend Allies
American strategists also think that the political consequences to a president of letting an ally get attacked would be damaging to a US president. The Republican Party attacked Biden over the hypothetical possibility that China will attack Taiwan if he is reelected in its first ad.
The president’s personal motives for appear strong often align with US national interest but not always. In this case, both American interests and political interests compel US leaders to respond to defend themselves and their allies.
US Nuclear Shield Makes Los Angeles and the World Safer
So if the US doesn’t want to sacrifice LA, we need to use our nuclear arsenal to prevent enemies for threatening to destroy LA. Mutually-assured destruction has prevented nuclear attacks throughout history. The only time a nuclear weapon was used in war was when no other country had the capability to respond with nuclear force. Now that multiple countries with a variety of different world views and allies possess nuclear weapons, it is very unlikely that any country will use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner. It is extremely unlikely that any country will attack a country that is both closely allied with the US and located in a critical region in which the US tries to maintain hegemony.
American refusal to use its nuclear shield would make the world less safe and result in more damage to the US and its citizens in the long term.