|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011 Location: ajosshi.com
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:09 am Post subject: S.Korea Needs to Consider Acquiring Nuclear Weapons |
|
|
S.Korea Needs to Consider Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
Any map of Northeast Asia shows that three countries surrounding South Korea -- North Korea, China and Russia -- have nuclear weapons, and now there are signs that even Japan is inching toward arming itself with the bomb. A look at the countries involved in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program shows that five of them, except South Korea, are either nuclear armed or potentially armed. The nuclear map of Northeast Asia is changing now that Japan has revised laws in late June that suggest it wants to develop nuclear weapons too. South Korea alone in the region has no prospect of acquiring them.
Why does Seoul continue to adhere to what looks like an increasingly outdated peace and denuclearization policy? The goal of denuclearization in Northeast Asia has become unattainable. North Korea is not going to abandon its nuclear weapons even at the cost of its own collapse, since the regime saw clearly what happened to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi when he gave them up.
Japan has turned the nuclear crisis into an opportunity. China's military might is increasing every day, and the re-election of the hawkish Vladimir Putin as Russia's new president has apparently prompted Japan to gear itself up for potential increases in military conflicts and diplomatic friction in Northeast Asia. This has resulted in Tokyo taking necessary steps so it could arm itself with nuclear weapons if the need arises. North Korea will undoubtedly use that development as an excuse to spur its own nuclear arms program.
The U.S. seems either to implicitly side with or even support Japan. When it was revealed that Japan had revised its nuclear law, South Korea and China expressed serious concern, but Washington did not appear too concerned.
Major U.S. dailies such as the New York Times and Washington Post did not cover the decision, while prominent American columnists, who had been quick to sound the alarm upon any signs of a threat to world peace or the slightest rise in the nuclear threat, were silent. Perhaps in their eyes, Japan�s moves were insignificant compared to the North Korean nuclear threat or the rising military might of China.
The U.S. is busy trying to appease South Korea by slightly boosting the range of its missiles and stressing the usefulness of the U.S.-led nuclear umbrella. The House Armed Services Committee voted in support of redeploying tactical nuclear weapons in the Western Pacific, but the State Department and Defense Department are vehemently against it and the White House appears set to veto it. Their opposition may be due to fears of provoking China, but the whole thing looks like a well-planned strategy.
In the long term, the U.S. will place more importance on keeping Beijing in check and maintaining the status quo rather than promoting understanding and mutual interests among Northeast Asian countries. The denuclearization of North Korea and the nuclear security of South Korea will become secondary. Right now, Washington is in favor of bolstering Japan's military power so it can serve as a proxy in restraining China. Paradoxically, the U.S. may even be seeking to arm Northeast Asian countries with nuclear weapons to create a state of mutually assured destruction so that no country would be foolish enough to pull the trigger.
But why is Japan being allowed to possess nuclear weapons but not South Korea? We cannot trust any country, including the U.S., when it comes to nuclear weapons. Remarkably, pro-North Korean activists in South Korea are silent about Washington's opposition to Seoul developing its own nuclear arms, which means they are in effect being pro-American.
South Korea is about to become extremely vulnerable as its Northeast Asian neighbors bolster their nuclear arsenals. Every time there is a call for South Korea to have nuclear weapons, opponents cite as reasons international laws, relations with Washington, or the danger of provoking China and North Korea. But those fears are becoming less and less convincing as North Korea shows no signs of abandoning its nuclear program and Japan moves to arm itself with nukes.
Japan's moves should be leading to the exact same consequences that South Korean opponents fear, yet there has been little resistance. Why can South Korea not do the same?
What clout could South Korea possibly wield in future denuclearization talks when the other five members are nuclear-armed states. What would North Korea gain by talking to us? This does not mean that we should immediately acquire our own nuclear weapons. But we should at least start serious discussion about whether we need them and free ourselves from the self-imposed shackles. We should at least have a nuclear option.
How can we possibly consider ourselves an independent and sovereign state if we cannot acquire our own weapons within reasonable limits due to fears of foreign opposition? The nuclear map of Northeast Asia is being re-drawn, yet there is no place on that map for South Korea.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/07/10/2012071001459.html |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
What are those countries going to launch a barrage of nukes and send in their Robo-legions?
Come on, its the 21st century. We'll probably get more effects from their toxic factories and toys than fallout. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Squire

Joined: 26 Sep 2010 Location: Jeollanam-do
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can imagine nationalist Koreans being thrilled to bits about getting nuclear weapons |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003 Location: La Florida
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments.
Squire wrote: |
I can imagine nationalist Koreans being thrilled to bits about getting nuclear weapons |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yodanole wrote: |
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments. |
George W. Bush once said "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." and I'm still not sure if it's funny because he's wrong or funny because he's right.
Regardless, the idea that "WE deserve to have fusion bombs that protect us from existential threats but YOU should never have that" is about the most ludicrous and hypocritical foreign policy standpoint one could have. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd be for it. It creates some leverage for the south when those Norks try to threaten us again. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
comm wrote: |
yodanole wrote: |
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments. |
George W. Bush once said "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." and I'm still not sure if it's funny because he's wrong or funny because he's right.
Regardless, the idea that "WE deserve to have fusion bombs that protect us from existential threats but YOU should never have that" is about the most ludicrous and hypocritical foreign policy standpoint one could have. |
Its the essence of the NPT (which also provides rights and benefits to non-nuclear weapon states), and that's the most successful and important international agreement the world has ever seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
comm wrote: |
yodanole wrote: |
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments. |
George W. Bush once said "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." and I'm still not sure if it's funny because he's wrong or funny because he's right.
Regardless, the idea that "WE deserve to have fusion bombs that protect us from existential threats but YOU should never have that" is about the most ludicrous and hypocritical foreign policy standpoint one could have. |
Its the essence of the NPT (which also provides rights and benefits to non-nuclear weapon states), and that's the most successful and important international agreement the world has ever seen. |
I suppose whether you think it's "important" and "successful" depends on which side of the divide you're on, and what security threats you currently face. In any case, the hypocrisy is self-evident. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
comm wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
comm wrote: |
yodanole wrote: |
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments. |
George W. Bush once said "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." and I'm still not sure if it's funny because he's wrong or funny because he's right.
Regardless, the idea that "WE deserve to have fusion bombs that protect us from existential threats but YOU should never have that" is about the most ludicrous and hypocritical foreign policy standpoint one could have. |
Its the essence of the NPT (which also provides rights and benefits to non-nuclear weapon states), and that's the most successful and important international agreement the world has ever seen. |
I suppose whether you think it's "important" and "successful" depends on which side of the divide you're on, and what security threats you currently face. In any case, the hypocrisy is self-evident. |
...and entirely rational. The advantages of having a nuclear deterrent are obvious, as are the dangers of having other states acquire them. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
NaD00D00
Joined: 10 Oct 2008 Location: Gimpo
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a couple of quick thoughts on the piece:
1. Having nuclear weapons does not make South Korea any less vulnerable.
2. Having nuclear weapons has nothing to do with whether or not a state is fully "independent" or "sovereign."
3. The whole obtaining/developing nuclear weapons for the sake of having clout in denuclearization talks bit made me chuckle.
4. Even if the author's claims about Japan are true, just because media outlets haven't reported on/there hasn't been uproar over Japan "developing weapons" doesn't mean that anyone is "allowing" it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
comm wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
comm wrote: |
yodanole wrote: |
Ummm.....Yeah...... I'm an American and I'm not really interested in the USA giving up our nuclear weapons. I'm not wild about the concept of even "limited nuclear exchanges", But I wouldn't want to be the guy at the knife fighting tournament with only a handkerchief. I completely understand their sentiments. |
George W. Bush once said "Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." and I'm still not sure if it's funny because he's wrong or funny because he's right.
Regardless, the idea that "WE deserve to have fusion bombs that protect us from existential threats but YOU should never have that" is about the most ludicrous and hypocritical foreign policy standpoint one could have. |
Its the essence of the NPT (which also provides rights and benefits to non-nuclear weapon states), and that's the most successful and important international agreement the world has ever seen. |
I suppose whether you think it's "important" and "successful" depends on which side of the divide you're on, and what security threats you currently face. In any case, the hypocrisy is self-evident. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Its not hypocrisy, its a bargain. NNWS receive technological and sometimes financial aid for peaceful purpose programs. Again, that's provided that the treaty works. It works for much of the world, but North Korea and Iran are outliers.
Quote: |
The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain: �the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals� |
As to its success and importance:
Quote: |
At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25-30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, only four states are not parties to the NPT, and they are the only additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons. |
There is some hypocrisy, but it comes from NWSs like the US who refuse to accommodate some NNWSs while being accommodating to non-parties like India and Pakistan.
I'm sorry, but the principle of equality or liberty has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There is no right to nuclear weaponry, and there's no value to providing weapons of mass destruction to as many countries as possible. Nations are not people, they are organizations. And as organizations, they could employ nuclear weapons to do real destruction to real people. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
I'm sorry, but the principle of equality or liberty has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There is no right to nuclear weaponry, and there's no value to providing weapons of mass destruction to as many countries as possible. Nations are not people, they are organizations. And as organizations, they could employ nuclear weapons to do real destruction to real people. |
Ok, so do other countries have the right to deny nuclear weapons to the United States? If not, what gives the U.S. and other countries that power? I understand that having nuclear weapons and preventing others from obtaining them is beneficial for "us", but I hardly expect non-nuclear states to agree to that in perpetuity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
comm wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
I'm sorry, but the principle of equality or liberty has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There is no right to nuclear weaponry, and there's no value to providing weapons of mass destruction to as many countries as possible. Nations are not people, they are organizations. And as organizations, they could employ nuclear weapons to do real destruction to real people. |
Ok, so do other countries have the right to deny nuclear weapons to the United States? If not, what gives the U.S. and other countries that power? I understand that having nuclear weapons and preventing others from obtaining them is beneficial for "us", but I hardly expect non-nuclear states to agree to that in perpetuity. |
And perpetuity is the problem. I remember attending a lecture during uni by a US Air Force colonel whose specialty was proliferation. He said, in no uncertain terms, that we had to come up with an alternative to the NPT, as countries will eventually just take the weapons development programs underground if you attempt to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Examples of this include Iraq, where Israel bombed the Osirak reactor, only to have Iraq take its weapons program underground, where we really can't pay attention to what they're doing. There's also the case of Iran, where the only way we found out about one of their refinement facilities was through an Iranian opposition group that passed the information along to the States. Basically, this Air Force colonel was saying that we can't always depend on our intelligence saving our asses, and that eventually countries will acquire the weapons anyway, so it's better to have them do it in an above board kind of way.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, necessarily, but I can see the argument. There is no ideal situation when it comes to weapons that could bring an end to life as we know it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oddly some South Korean nationalists are proud of North Korea's nukes and they think Korea will keep them under a unified government....not unless it's unified under the north's terms. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
northway wrote: |
comm wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
I'm sorry, but the principle of equality or liberty has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There is no right to nuclear weaponry, and there's no value to providing weapons of mass destruction to as many countries as possible. Nations are not people, they are organizations. And as organizations, they could employ nuclear weapons to do real destruction to real people. |
Ok, so do other countries have the right to deny nuclear weapons to the United States? If not, what gives the U.S. and other countries that power? I understand that having nuclear weapons and preventing others from obtaining them is beneficial for "us", but I hardly expect non-nuclear states to agree to that in perpetuity. |
And perpetuity is the problem. I remember attending a lecture during uni by a US Air Force colonel whose specialty was proliferation. He said, in no uncertain terms, that we had to come up with an alternative to the NPT, as countries will eventually just take the weapons development programs underground if you attempt to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Examples of this include Iraq, where Israel bombed the Osirak reactor, only to have Iraq take its weapons program underground, where we really can't pay attention to what they're doing. There's also the case of Iran, where the only way we found out about one of their refinement facilities was through an Iranian opposition group that passed the information along to the States. Basically, this Air Force colonel was saying that we can't always depend on our intelligence saving our asses, and that eventually countries will acquire the weapons anyway, so it's better to have them do it in an above board kind of way.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with this, necessarily, but I can see the argument. There is no ideal situation when it comes to weapons that could bring an end to life as we know it. |
The int'l community knows that the NPT is not the last word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|