No Military Merit in Deploying U.S. Nuclear Weapons to S. Korea: U.S. Experts

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (Korea Bizwire) — There is little or no military benefit that can be served by deploying U.S. nuclear weapons to South Korea, U.S. experts said Thursday, insisting such a move would only lead to further escalation with nuclear-armed North Korea.

They also argued stationing nuclear-armed submarines in waters near South Korea too may provide no significant merit, adding the 28,500-strong U.S. forces in Korea already provide the security assurance and deterrence South Korea needs.

“The redeployment of U.S. nuclear weapons to South Korean soil lacks military merit,” declared Bruce Klingner, senior research fellow at the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank based in Washington.

The U.S. expert noted the U.S. no longer maintains ground-based nuclear weapons and that tactical nuclear weapons are now mounted on mobile air- and sea-based platforms, “making them difficult for North Korea to find and target.”

“To place them in a static underground bunker would degrade allied deterrence and heighten the risk of a North Korean preemptive attack on such high-value targets,” said Klingner.

The U.S. withdrew all its nuclear arsenal from South Korea in late 1991 under a disarmament deal with the then Soviet Union and an inter-Korean agreement on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

A growing number of South Koreans, including ruling party lawmakers, have been calling for the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea following a recent series of North Korean ballistic missile launches.

Pyongyang also recently announced a new nuclear policy that it says will allow automatic and immediate use of nuclear weapons when the country is under danger of an attack, possibly hinting at its preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Seoul and Washington.

Seoul and Washington have said the North may soon conduct a nuclear test, which will mark its seventh test. The North conducted its sixth nuclear test in September 2017.

Patrick Cronin, Chair for Asia-Pacific Security at the Washington-based Hudson Institute think tank, said the Joe Biden administration will unlikely consider deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea, while also noting the U.S. may currently have no such assets available amid the raging war in Ukraine and growing competition with China.

He also insisted the U.S. troops currently stationed in South Korea already provide the security assurance that Seoul may be seeking.

“The deployment of 28,500 U.S. troops on South Korean soil remains a severe barrier to aggression by North Korea. These forces and the alliance are backed by the entire arsenal of U.S. forces, including stealthy undersea and long-range nuclear weapons,” he told Yonhap News Agency.

Given that deploying U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea would undermine the allies’ stated goal of completely denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, South Korean lawmakers are also beginning to float the idea that the U.S. could instead permanently station nuclear-armed submarines or aircraft carriers in waters near the peninsula.

President Yoon Suk-yeol, when asked about the idea Thursday (Seoul time), said his government was looking carefully at “various possibilities” of ways to strengthen U.S. extended deterrence.

The experts said an announcement of the U.S. stationing such assets in the region would not serve the allies while only increasing tension.

“Submarines are stealthy launch platforms whose location is best kept from opponents. Any U.S. statement that a submarine was “near” Korea could not be verified by either North or South Korea. Nor does the submarine need to (be) near the peninsula to reach North Korea with nuclear weapons,” said Klingner.

Harry Kazianis, president and CEO of Rogue States Project, a national security think tank based in Washington, agreed, noting the U.S.’ nuclear-armed submarines may already be patrolling the Pacific on a “nearly continuous basis.”

“Basing such a submarine would only speed up the destruction of North Korea within a few minutes if the DPRK attacked, and provides no benefit to Seoul at all,” he said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

“While it does signal support for sure, there is no military benefit in any way at all,” he added.

Kazianis noted the Biden administration may appear to consider deploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea when requested by Seoul, without actually deploying such weapons.

“Washington could float the idea it was considering such a request to get North Korea to back off or deter more DPRK missile tests and get the benefit of deployment without actually doing it,” he said.

Klingner pointed to a need for the U.S. to provide additional security assurances to South Korea to help quell the ongoing debate there.

“The issue seems to be more of South Korean mistrust of the U.S. commitment to defense (defend) its ally,” he said, adding the recently reactivated Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group, a high-level dialogue between Seoul and Washington on U.S. extended deterrence, might be the right venue for discussions on ways to enhance their joint deterrence.

“But the U.S. might question what more can be done to reassure Seoul beyond its defense treaty obligation, its extended deterrence guarantee, innumerable presidential pledges, and the presence of 28,500 uniformed U.S. military personnel,” said Klingner.

“Advocates for reintroduction of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, stationing submarines near the peninsula, or Seoul developing an indigenous weapons program have all failed to articulate what objective they seek or how any option would alter North Korea’s behavior,” he added.

(Yonhap)