We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
South Korea's nuclear pickle
The US and South Korea on Wednesday agreed to deploy American nuclear-armed submarines in South Korean waters for the first time in more than 40 years. Both governments framed the deal as “extended deterrence” from the US security umbrella against a North Korean nuclear attack.
As part of the agreement, Seoul committed to maintaining its non-nuclear status. But will it be enough to stop South Korea from flirting with the idea of developing homegrown atomic weapons?
In recent months, the once-fringe idea of Seoul getting the bomb has exploded into the mainstream conversation. President Yoon Suk Yeol has publicly raised the possibility, and media pundits are talking about it 24/7. What's more, almost three-quarters of South Koreans are in favor (although they worry equally about countering Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un pushing the red button).
To understand why South Korea is considering getting its own nukes, picture this doomsday scenario: North Korea suddenly attacks South Korea, pushing the US to intervene. But then Kim threatens to nuke a mainland US city, which he can now reach with his newest ICBMs.
Would Washington go to bat for Seoul? And perhaps more importantly, would it do so before it's too late because it’s distracted by messy US domestic politics or another crisis like China invading Taiwan?
Most South Koreans don't want to take that chance. After all, the country's literal existence is on the line — even more so after Russia’s nuclear threats in Ukraine have awakened long-dormant fears of nuclear war.
Ukraine “has made the anxiety real,” says Jenny Town, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center and director of its 38 North Program. “Prior to that, I think we'd all gotten really comfortable with the notion that nuclear weapons would actually never be used again.”
But in her view, going nuclear comes with immense risks that far outweigh the benefits. For starters, nuclear parity doesn’t make anyone safer.
“What we see in South Asia [with India and Pakistan] is exactly the opposite,” Town explains. "It doesn't stop the provocations. It doesn't stop the adventurism. If anything ... they're both sort of still kind of egging each other on."
A nuclear-armed South Korea would also face severe external blowback. To restart the nuclear program it shuttered due to US pressure in 1975, the same year Seoul ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, South Korea would first need to withdraw from the NPT. That's what North Korea did before testing its first atomic weapon in 2006 (and Iran has yet to do).
Walking away from the NPT would surely be met with sanctions, the extent and severity of which is unclear. But South Korea's booming economy would take a hit, as would all the soft power that Seoul has carefully built for years to become a global pop-culture heavyweight.
In short, going nuclear would hurt the likes of both Samsung and BTS.
The ripple effects would be felt by South Korea's neighbors. The move would likely trigger a nuclear arms race, with Japan next in line, while the Iranians would be even more emboldened to get the bomb. China won’t be happy — especially if the US ultimately decides to (reluctantly) accept South Korea as a nuclear power and maintains its security ties with Seoul.
Pyongyang, which boasts an arsenal of nukes that could turn all South Korean cities into flames within minutes, is unfazed by the hand-wringing in Seoul.
"The North Koreans don't necessarily believe the South Koreans would [build their own nuclear weapons] if the US was against it, given how they think about South Korea being a US puppet anyway," says Town. "But they know it's a useful discussion in order to bring discord in the alliance."
Will the US subs deal get the South Koreans to back off? On the one hand, America being able to respond to a North Korean attack within minutes instead of hours might give Kim some pause. But moving the nukes from Guam won't matter if America doesn't act fast enough to order a nuclear strike on Pyongyang.
Still, it’s a tough choice: Risk atomic annihilation or turn international pariah that no amount of “Squid Game” diplomacy can fix.Ukrainian service members fire a mortar towards Russian troops outside the frontline town of Bakhmut, in Donetsk region, Ukraine March 6, 2023.
What We’re Watching: Battle for Bakhmut, Xi’s diplomatic muscle, AUKUS sub deal
The Bakhmut killing field
Bakhmut, home to about 75,000 people before the war, has become an urban killing field. Western intelligence agencies say up to 30,000 Russians have died or been seriously injured in the fight to take this town. Ukrainian casualties, harder to estimate, are also running high.
Russians appear to be fighting mainly to achieve some victory following months of setbacks followed by stalemate. They also hope the eventual capture of this town can boost their chances of advancing on larger cities in other parts of Donetsk province, though some analysts say they won’t have the manpower or firepower to advance beyond Bakhmut anytime soon. Adding to Russia’s complications, the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War argues that the country’s defense ministry has likely pushed large numbers of Wagner Group mercenaries to the deadliest sites of fighting in Bakhmut to reduce the Kremlin influence of Wagner chief and frequent critic of the Russian military Yevgeny Prigozhin by thinning out his force.
Though badly outnumbered, Ukrainian forces have been slow to surrender Bakhmut because they want to inflict as much damage as possible on Russian forces ahead of an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive in the coming weeks. For now, the killing continues.
Xi’s upcoming Moscow trip
Just weeks after releasing a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine, China’s President Xi Jinping is reportedly set to meet with Vladimir Putin in Moscow as soon as next week. This would be Xi’s second trip outside mainland China since lifting the draconian zero-COVID policy in December.
Xi, a close mate of Putin’s who has benefited from buying up cheap Russian oil and gas since the war broke out, has sought to position himself as a key arbiter between Russia and Ukraine. He is not known to have spoken directly to President Volodymyr Zelensky since Russia’s onslaught began one year ago, but there are reports that Xi and Zelensky could finally connect virtually next week.
Despite maintaining warm relations with Russia and voting against UN measures condemning Moscow’s aggression, Xi isn’t necessarily a fan of the ongoing war, which continues to put pressure on the global economy and fuel inflation, making it harder for poor debtors to repay their loans to Beijing. What’s more, just days after brokering a diplomatic breakthrough between foes Iran and Saudi Arabia, Beijing is likely feeling chuffed at the growing perception of its increasing diplomatic clout … at the US’ expense.
AUKUS phase two
Remember the 2021 AUKUS deal between the US, UK, and Australia? That’s the pact that caused France to temporarily withdraw its ambassadors from Washington and Canberra after the three allies signed a security alliance focused on the Indo-Pacific and ditched plans for Australia to buy French-made submarines.
On Monday, President Joe Biden, UK PM Rishi Sunak, and Australia’s Anthony Albanese met in San Diego and took the agreement to the next level by expanding the arms and tech deal. Australia is now set to buy nuclear-powered submarines from the US, and will co-build a new submarine with the UK as it retires its current fleet over the next decade. This is a huge deal, marking the first time the US will share its nuclear technology for these vessels since it did so with Britain in 1958 as part of a defense pact.
The arming of Australia is yet another signal that Washington is expanding its military presence in the Indo-Pacific and that London is positioning itself on a greater collision course with Beijing going forward. Crucially, because Australia will rely on Washington for tech support in operating the US-made submarines, some have expressed concern that Canberra’s military sovereignty could be at risk.
Indeed, it’s a good time to be in the weapons business: Sunak has announced that the UK will ramp up its defense spending by £5 billion over the next two years to deal with a range of national security threats – code for China and Russia.
An unhappy Beijing hit back Tuesday, accusing the three states of "walking further and further down the path of error and danger."