[COLUMN] Do we have to maintain denuclearization policy?

By Kang Yong-jin Posted : September 13, 2017, 17:08 Updated : September 13, 2017, 17:08

[Ministry of Defense]



With the success of North Korea 's nuclear test, South Korea's nuclear armament became a buzzword. The opposition, as well as some ruling party members and military authorities, are increasingly arguing for the re-deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

The presidential Blue House opposes the re-deployment of nuclear weapons. The biggest reason is that we can not give up denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. If we possess nuclear weapons, it means that there is no reason to persuade North Korea to denuclearize. In addition, the Blue House seems to be concerned about various side effects such as strong opposition from China and Russia.

Public opinion overwhelmingly favors tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrence to North Korea's nuclear attack. At least, it's probably enough to regain our metal security that has been greatly disturbed by North Korea's hydrogen bomb test. It is, in fact, the first time that discussions about tactical nuclear weapons have become so active.

Is it really necessary to bring back the tactical nuclear system? There are two reasons. First of all, there is a balance theory of fear. It is argued that only nuclear weapons are capable of dealing with nuclear weapons. This proved to be true in the so-called 'Mutual Confidence Destruction Strategy' between the US and the Soviet Union in the Cold War era.

More than that, it is doubtful whether the US can really match Seoul and Los Angeles. This leads to the idea that tactical nuclear weapons will counteract North Korea's threat to launch a direct nuclear attack on the US and ask it to take its hands off South Korea. Indeed, North Korea is demanding the withdrawal of US forces from South Korea after its hydrogen bomb test.

But does this claim apply to the Korean Peninsula? It is a general assessment that a strategy adopted by South Korea and the US can protect us from any North Korean threats with powerful US military power around the peninsula, including nuclear weapons. In the end, the meaning of tactical nuclear weapons seems to have more effective in calming anxiety stirred by North Korea's hydrogen bomb test, rather than having substantial military significance. Thus, the Blue House position that tactical nuclear weapons would not be helpful to the peninsula's denuclearization seems logically plausible at least.

The problem is that the position of maintaining denuclearization is insufficient to calm security anxiety. Furthermore, it is highly possible that any domestic or foreign policy will face difficulty without calming security anxiety. If there is no other way, the government may eventually give up or modify its position.

The 1991 Joint Declaration on denuclearization is an old one that has already been void due to North Korea's unilateral withdrawal. As it is confirmed that North Korea can succeed in the hydrogen bomb test and make it small enough to be mounted on a missile, is it possible to maintain the denuclearization policy?

There is an analysis that the US intended to pressure China and Russia to adopt the UN Security Council's resolution on sanctions against the background of debate on tactical nuclear armament. It would be true, but that's not all. US tactical nuclear weapons are presented as an alternative because South Korea's independent nuclear arsenal is practically difficult.

Experts say that South Korea is capable of developing a 100kt nuclear weapon in six months. Japan is much faster, so it can be done in three weeks. In other words, South Korea has no technical difficulties in nuclear armament and the international political environment is a greater factor.

However, if North Korea's nuclear development is finally completed and its threat to South Korea and the US becomes more visible, allegations about the re-deployment of tactical nuclear weapons may quickly turn into pressure for independent nuclear armament that presupposes a departure from the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and there is a great risk that it will be followed by massive sacrifices. Nevertheless, if it is the only way to protect us, it can be inevitable. It is important for both the government and the people to make every effort and prevent this situation from happening.



기사 이미지 확대 보기
닫기