The Rising Debate on Tactical Nuclear Weapons... How Realistic Is It?

The United States' tactical nuclear bomb B-61 for aircraft deployment (Photo by Asia Economy DB)

[Asia Economy Yang Nak-gyu, Military Specialist Reporter] The debate over possessing tactical nuclear weapons has surfaced. The argument for tactical nuclear armament, which began in political circles, has gained momentum following North Korea's surprise launch of ballistic missiles equipped with tactical nuclear warheads from mobile launchers (TEL), submarines, trains, and even reservoirs. This has strengthened the logic of "nuclear weapons against nuclear weapons." There is a call to comprehensively reconsider the U.S. military's nuclear sharing and overall nuclear strategy toward North Korea.

President Yoon Suk-yeol also stated on the morning of the 12th, while heading to the Yongsan Presidential Office building, "As the president, this is not an issue on which I can publicly express a position one way or another at this time." His remarks differ from his previous clear stance against redeploying tactical nuclear weapons. At a press conference marking his 100th day in office last August, President Yoon expressed a negative view on calls for nuclear armament or nuclear balance by saying, "We intend to uphold the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) system without giving up until the end."

There are three main ways South Korea could acquire nuclear weapons: independent nuclear armament, redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, or a NATO-style nuclear sharing agreement involving joint operation of tactical nuclear weapons with neighboring countries.

South Korea once attempted to possess nuclear weapons. Former President Park Chung-hee secretly ordered the Blue House in 1974 to develop technology to manufacture nuclear weapons by 1977 after the withdrawal of U.S. forces stationed in Korea. However, this was stopped by the United States.

Even now, the idea of independent nuclear armament resurfaces. This is due to growing doubts about the nuclear umbrella operated based on the South Korea-U.S. alliance. Recently, the U.S. has demonstrated an "America First" attitude in economic areas, such as enacting the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provides subsidies only for electric vehicles produced domestically, further eroding trust in the South Korea-U.S. alliance.

However, there are many diplomatic obstacles. Although withdrawing from the NPT and pursuing independent nuclear armament is an option, it is considered the least feasible due to the U.S. leading the NPT and the possibility of international sanctions. Moreover, it would require a high-level political decision to break away from denuclearization norms pledged to the international community, such as the South Korea-U.S. Atomic Energy Agreement and the joint declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Particularly, if South Korea independently acquires nuclear weapons, nuclear armament debates would inevitably arise in neighboring Taiwan and Japan, triggering a "nuclear armament domino effect."

For this reason, the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula is being proposed as an alternative. The U.S. began deploying tactical nuclear weapons to U.S. forces in South Korea in 1958, reaching about 900 warheads at one point, but withdrew all in 1991 to eliminate North Korea's justification for nuclear development.

However, both options violate the principle of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and it is difficult for the U.S., which maintains a non-proliferation stance, to hastily redeploy tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula. It is also known that the issue of tactical nuclear redeployment has not been discussed in the South Korea-U.S. Expanded Deterrence Strategy Committee (EDSCG) at the deputy ministerial level for foreign affairs and defense.

Some experts suggest a NATO-style nuclear sharing agreement as an alternative. Since the U.S. is known to be negative about deploying nuclear weapons within South Korea, the feasibility of nuclear armament is low. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and T?rkiye have operated a nuclear sharing system since the 1960s, deploying U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on their soil and coordinating their operation through nuclear planning groups. While the U.S. retains final authority for use, other non-nuclear alliance members jointly participate in decisions such as target selection and nuclear weapon operation.

Kim Tae-woo, former director of the Korea Institute for National Unification, said, "South Korea should consider signing a NATO-style nuclear sharing agreement that allows participation in nuclear use decisions, deploying tactical nuclear weapons in nearby regions, operating air-to-ground combat aircraft, or maintaining nuclear submarines in adjacent waters." He also proposed, "It is necessary to consider recommending nuclear armament for South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan and forming a nuclear security cooperation group among the four countries?South Korea, the U.S., Japan, and Taiwan?such as a Nuclear QUAD."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.