Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!



Reintroducing Nukes to South Korea

By William Beecher

In face of the almost daily escalation of bellicose rhetoric from North Korea, the United States might consider reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea as a means both of taming the North and calming the South. An ancillary affect might also be to strengthen rather than weaken nuclear non-proliferation in the region.

Most analysts tend to dismiss the threatening war chants of Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s impetuous new 28-year-old dictator, as designed to increase his stature as a tough leader with his military establishment, and to entice the United States and others to provide new quantities of food and fuel in order to placate Pyongyang, just as his father and grandfather did repeatedly before him.

While that analysis might well be spot on, there’s always the danger of a sudden miscalculation that could trigger another bloody chapter in the Korean War. Chung Mong-joon, a leading member of the South Korean ruling party and a former presidential candidate, declared recently, “Nuclear deterrence can be the only answer. We have to have nuclear capability.”

And a public opinion poll only last month found that 66 percent of South Koreans said they favor developing nuclear weapons.

Now the government of South Korea, long a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, insists it wants no such weapons program.  However, it is currently renegotiating its 1972 nuclear cooperation pact with the United States. It is strenuously arguing for permission to acquire both uranium enrichment technology and spent fuel reprocessing technology from the United States for its 22 nuclear power reactors.

It contends it wants the enrichment capability so it won’t be wholly reliant on outside suppliers for reactor fuel. And it says it wants reprocessing capability to deal with the growing pile of nuclear reactor waste which it says presents an environmental problem.

Lest anyone raise the point that enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, and that reprocessing of spent fuel produces weapons-grade plutonium, South Korean negotiators say they would be happy to allow intensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But there has been a long history in South Korea of secretly pursuing a nuclear option. The United States has repeatedly used its leverage to tamp down such efforts. The United States first introduced tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea in 1958 when, because of severe budgetary pressure after the Korean War, it was decided to reduce our conventional force levels there from about 300,000 at the time of the armistice to 50,000. The nukes were thought to represent an equalizer to deter an attack from North Korea.

But in 1991, as part of a global initiative, President George H. Bush withdrew tactical nuclear weapons from most overseas deployments. It was hoped this would also strengthen the objective of keeping the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free.

Over the years, a number of agreements were reached with North Korea to severely restrain its nuclear efforts, focusing on its plutonium extraction facility at Yongbyon, which Kim now threatens to reopen. Pyongyang long denied it had a separate uranium enrichment program. But it’s now apparent that it was pursuing both weapons efforts in parallel. 

If South Korea were to get access to either uranium enrichment technology or plutonium-producing spent fuel reprocessing technology, there would likely be pressure from influential leaders in both Japan and Taiwan to bring whatever nuclear weapons programs might be in the closet out into the open. For Japan is worried about both North Korea and China, and Taiwan is worried about a Chinese threat.

The United States has long argued that our nuclear umbrella is sufficient guarantee of the security of our friends and allies against a nuclear threat. If the United States now reintroduced a small number of tactical nuclear weapons into South Korea, it would strengthen our argument about extended deterrence, and undermine the case for the South leaving the non-proliferation treaty. At the same time, it would undermine the sub-rosa pro-nuclear movements in Japan and Taiwan.

As for North Korea, at that juncture, to threaten to rain nuclear weapons onto South Korean cities would be seen as an empty, self-defeating threat.



William Beecher is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Washington correspondent for the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times. He also served as an Assistant Secretary of Defense. He is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland. His blog can be accessed here.


Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.


Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy

Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.


Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 


When the Senate Worked for Us:
New book offers untold stories of how activist staffers countered corporate lobbies in the U.S.

MA in International Policy and Development
Middlebury Institute (Monterey, CA): Put theory into practice through client-based coursework. Apply by Feb. 1.

Millennium Project’s State of the Future 19.0: Collective Intelligence on the Future of the World


To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook