"Korea Must Develop Nuclear Weapons"... Research Teams from Pusan National University and Kyung Hee University Argue in Recent Paper

Robert Kelly of Pusan National University and Minhyung Kim of Kyung Hee University Co-author Study Published in SSCI International Journal
South Korea's Nuclear Armament Seen as a Realistic and Limited Option Amid U.S. Deterrence Limits... Low Likelihood of Breaking South Korea-U.S. Alliance

An American political scientist active in Korea and a domestic professor have co-authored a paper supporting South Korea's nuclear armament logic, drawing attention.

Robert Kelly, an American political scientist and professor at Pusan National University, and Minhyung Kim, a professor at Kyung Hee University, stated in their latest paper, "President Donald Trump will not fight for America's allies, and now it is time for South Korea to have its own nuclear deterrent," adding, "South Korea should develop nuclear weapons."

They argued that South Korea's nuclear armament may be inevitable amid North Korea's nuclear threat, and the United States is likely to eventually accept this. The researchers assessed that South Korea's possession of nuclear weapons is not threatening enough to break the South Korea-U.S. alliance.

Pusan National University (President Choi Jae-won) announced on the 4th that Professor Robert E. Kelly of the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at PNU, through joint research with Professor Minhyung Kim of the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Kyung Hee University, recently published an English paper summarizing key arguments for South Korea's nuclear armament and rebuttals to U.S. counterarguments, which was introduced in a reputable major English-language media outlet.

The paper titled "Why South Korea should go Nuclear" was published in the January/February issue of the SSCI international academic journal Foreign Affairs.

The two researchers stated, "North Korea would use nuclear weapons against the United States if the U.S. enters a war. Therefore, the South Korea-U.S. alliance no longer guarantees U.S. participation in the Korean War," adding, "North Korea's nuclear weapons will inevitably change the decision-making of U.S. elites, and President Donald Trump is exacerbating this situation. It is now too risky for South Korea to rely solely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella."

This study includes the argument that although the U.S. opposes South Korea's nuclear armament, it is highly likely to accept it eventually and should do so.

According to the research, North Korea's nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) permanently reduce the credibility of the U.S.'s extended deterrence. Therefore, South Korea will demand more concrete security guarantees in response to concerns about U.S. abandonment, and the situation has worsened with the rise of President Donald Trump.

Considering the risk of North Korea's nuclear attacks, the U.S. finds it difficult to completely block South Korea's nuclear armament and has historically tolerated allies' nuclear armament for strategic reasons.

South Korea's nuclear armament is a realistic response to North Korea's ongoing threats, and concerns about nuclear non-proliferation are exaggerated. Furthermore, even if South Korea possesses nuclear weapons, their scale will be limited, and the possibility of the South Korea-U.S. alliance breaking up is low.

This paper focuses on the U.S. reaction to South Korea's autonomous nuclear armament debate. Although the U.S. opposes South Korea's nuclear armament, due to North Korea's nuclear threat, weakening U.S. extended deterrence, and the rise of isolationism within the U.S., it is highly likely to reluctantly accept it. Historically, the U.S. did not want allies to have nuclear weapons but tolerated cases such as the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan to maintain strategic relationships, and South Korea is expected to be no exception.

In this regard, two arguments are presented from empirical and normative perspectives. From an empirical perspective, the U.S. will accept South Korea's nuclear possession without breaking the alliance. After North Korea acquired nuclear ICBMs, the credibility of U.S. extended deterrence weakened, and with the strengthening of U.S. isolationism after Trump, the possibility of abandoning South Korea increased.

Accordingly, public opinion and elite support for nuclear armament are expanding within South Korea, and the U.S. foreign policy community, concerned about alliance fractures, is predicted to ultimately tolerate South Korea's nuclear possession.

From a normative perspective, South Korea's nuclear armament is not seen as having enough impact to break the South Korea-U.S. alliance. Non-proliferation concerns are difficult to apply to South Korea, which is expected to responsibly manage nuclear weapons as a democratic country. It is also analyzed that South Korea's nuclear possession is unlikely to trigger a nuclear armament chain reaction in Japan, Taiwan, and other countries.

In conclusion, South Korea's nuclear armament is a legitimate choice to respond to nuclear threats from North Korea and China and is not necessarily a factor that will weaken the South Korea-U.S. alliance. The researchers also concluded that even if South Korea pursues nuclear armament, its limited scale makes it unlikely to lead to a serious situation where the alliance with the U.S. is broken.

Professor Robert Kelly (left), Professor Kim Minhyung.

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