hankyoreh

South Korean and US fighter jets fly in formation for a bombing exercise on Oct. 4 in response to North Korea’s launch of an intermediate-range ballistic missile. (courtesy of MND/Reuters/Yonhap)

Amid North Korea’s recent escalations of its nuclear threats and the mounting possibility of it carrying out a seventh nuclear test, some in South Korea’s ruling party have been arguing for the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the South as a means of strengthening the country’s deterrence.

In other words, the ruling party is calling for a tit-for-tat strategy in dealing with the North.

However, some are critical of the idea, saying that deploying tactical nuclear weapons would not only go against the principle of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but would also prove unviable as a solution to the security crisis as it is dependent on US policy.

The general feeling in Yongsan is that the president’s remarks remain consistent with his previous positions and that they were simply made in consideration of various possibilities, such as a seventh nuclear test by the North.

In regard to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, President Yoon Seok-yeol said Tuesday, that Korea will “carefully listen to and weigh the various opinions coming from Korea and the United States.” These remarks have been criticized as running counter to his previous position of compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and clear opposition to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

Such weapons, which usually refer to nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 20 kilotons, are less powerful than strategic nuclear weapons, which can devastate an entire city.

The ruling People Power Party (PPP) has gone even further than the president.

Chung Jin-suk, head of the PPP emergency steering committee, argued on Wednesday that the Sept. 19 inter-Korean military agreement adopted during the Moon Jae-in administration and the 1991 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula “ought to be scrapped” if North Korea goes ahead with a seventh nuclear test.

However, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons is not a simple matter. It would run completely counter to the principle of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which is the bedrock of denuclearization negotiations with North Korea.

“The redeployment of nuclear weapons will invite backlash from China and Russia,” said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, “and may lead to a nuclear domino effect in Northeast Asia, such as in Japan and Taiwan.”

For the past 30 years, the 1991 inter-Korean declaration has served as a reference point for North Korea’s denuclearization. It has also been an important ground for criticism and sanctions by the international community, including the United Nations.

In 1991, South Korea and the US persuaded North Korea to adopt the Agreed Framework and Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and to allow international nuclear inspections in exchange for the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from the South and a suspension of the South Korea-US Team Spirit military exercise that year. The redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea could end up the opening salvo in a Northeast Asian nuclear arms race.

“Redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons has the potential to trigger objections from Japan, China and Russia and bring about a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia,” Yang predicted.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un watches military drills, for which he gave guidance “on the spot” according to state media, in this photo released by state media. (KCNA/Yonhap)

Tactical nuclear weapons are also not something that can be deployed with a snap of Seoul’s finger. The decision is up to the US, which owns the weapons and has signaled its unwillingness to deploy them in the past.

In remarks Tuesday, John Kirby, the White House National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, kept the possibility of tactical nuclear weapon deployment at arm’s length.

“Our goal is the complete, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” he stressed.

Similarly, Mark Lambert, deputy assistant secretary of state for South Korean and Japanese affairs, said in September 2021 that he would be “surprised that the people who issued [. . .] those statements don't know what US policy is.” In his response, he dismissed Yoon’s reference to the deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons and sharing of nuclear capabilities.

The message has been that tactical weapons are not merely a matter for the Korean Peninsula but something that hinges on the US’ global strategy. Indeed, the decision to withdraw tactical nukes from the peninsula three decades ago was based on Washington’s global strategy at the time.

Concerned about the possibility of nuclear weapons located throughout the Soviet Union’s 15 republics falling into the hands of “rogue states” as the union stood poised for collapse, then-US President George Bush abruptly announced initiatives on Sept. 28, 1991, for the withdrawal and discontinuation of tactical nuclear weapon deployment around the world. This was also when US Forces Korea’s (USFK) tactical weapons were withdrawn, having been put in place in the 1950s as a check against the Soviets.

Analysts suggested that changes in the ways tactical nukes are operated have reduced the need to deploy them directly in the South.

“Of the 100 tactical nuclear weapons present in 1991, 40 of them were for artillery purposes, so the tactical nukes were deployed with USFK, but now those weapons are operated by bombers,” explained a South Korean military official.

“In the event of an emergency, US Air Force aircraft would arrive from the US mainland or Guam, so there’s no need to keep tactical nuclear weapons deployed here,” they added.

Even if the weapons were deployed in South Korea, they would be operated by the US.

Some appear to be hopeful that a South Korea-US “nuclear sharing” system along NATO lines might be established once the weapons are deployed, with South Korea being able to use them as needed.

But even in NATO’s case, it is the US that calls the shots for the weapons’ deployment in Europe, including the locations, numbers, and target strike conditions. It’s a system where the US has exclusive authority over their use, while South Korea’s role amounts to little more than loading tactical nuclear warheads onto aircraft and dropping them.

The deepening war in Ukraine could prove to be another variable. With Russia warning that it could use tactical nukes against Ukraine as the tide of the war turns against it, analysts suggested that the US would not be willing to deploy the weapons in South Korea too.

The presidential office cautioned against reading too much into the prospect of tactical nuclear weapon deployment.

Stressing that “we share the perception that this is a serious situation,” a presidential office official said, “The robust cooperation that centers on the South Korea-US alliance and also includes Japan is such that we don’t need to proceed as far as the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.”

“Our commitment to honoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has not changed at this time,” they added.

A former foreign affairs and national security official said, “The government and ruling party are responsible for security, and need to present foreign affairs and national security policies that are concrete and structured.”

“The ruling party’s emphasis on unrealistic ideas for the redeployment of tactical nukes suggest that they are politicizing security in order to rally their supporters with hardline North Korea measures,” they suggested.

By Kwon Hyuk-chul, staff reporter; Kim Mi-na, staff reporter; Oh Yeon-seo, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]