Should South Korea make nuclear bombs? Yoon said ‘yes’ in 2023, 73% citizens endorse it now

A year after President Yoon Suk Yeol, now facing impeachment for an abortive declaration of martial law, caused international alarm by saying that acquiring tactical nuclear weapons was an option for Seoul, a poll by Gallup Korea earlier this year revealed that 73 per cent of South Koreans now believe that the country should develop its own nuclear weapons.

Although President Yoon reversed his earlier stance by stating that developing nuclear weapons is not realistic — despite previously claiming it could be done “pretty quickly”—there is certainly a momentum building for a shift that could have profound and far-reaching consequences, not only for Korea but for the entire world.

According to The Times report, in the past two years it has become a matter of mainstream political debate as a growing majority of its people have concluded that South Korea urgently needs to acquire its own nuclear weapons. The political and practical obstacles are huge, and a nuclear armed South Korea is still years away at the very least.

More from World

Nepal's new PM pays homage to people died during the Gen Z protest in her first national address This Week in Explainers: How recovering from Gen-Z protests is a Himalayan task for Nepal

However, 2025 could be decisive in determining if and when the move takes place, added the report.

As a treaty ally of the US, South Korea relies on the US “nuclear umbrella,” although American nuclear weapons were removed from the South in 1991. South Korea is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and promotes denuclearisation on the peninsula to pressure North Korea to dismantle its expanding arsenal of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

However, rather than making concessions, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has intensified his weapons programme. He is believed to possess dozens of nuclear warheads and has tested various rockets, including intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

‘The cries of this widow will echo’: In first public remarks, Erika Kirk warns Charlie’s killers they’ve ‘unleashed a fire’

Trump urges Nato to back sanctions on Russia, calls for 50–100% tariffs on China

These weapons aren’t meant to directly threaten the US; Kim understands that attacking a superpower would result in catastrophic retaliation. Instead, he aims to create uncertainty among Americans regarding their response to a potential conflict between North and South Korea, reported The Times.

While the US is obligated to defend Seoul, and combined forces would likely prevail in a conventional conflict, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities complicate the strategic landscape significantly.

“The fact that North Korea possesses the nuclear weapons and ICBMs that could attack the United States makes the United States far less likely to wish to engage in a conflict with North Korea,” The Times quoted Cheong Seong-chang of the Seoul-based think-tank, the Sejong Institute, as saying.

“If North Korea attacks South Korea, will the US be prepared to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe tens of millions, of its own people to respond?” asked Cheong.

According to the report, this nightmare is intensified by the strategic alliance between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, with North Korean troops now deployed to fight in Ukraine. In Seoul, there are growing fears — though unsubstantiated — that Russia may reward Kim with intercontinental ballistic missile technology, enhancing his ability to target the US, added the report.

The situation is further complicated by the impending inauguration of Donald Trump, whose “America First” slogan suggests a disregard for traditional alliances.

Trump has expressed skepticism about such partnerships and has threatened to demand that South Korea pay more for the 28,500 US troops stationed there or to consider reducing their numbers.

“If I were there now, they would be paying us $10 billion a year,” The Times quoted Trump as saying before his election, compared to the $1 billion Seoul contributes at present.

“They would be happy to do it. It’s a money machine, South Korea,” he added.

Cheong believes that those opposed to nuclearisation in South Korea might reconsider if Trump were to reduce the number of US forces in the country.

Technically, South Korea has nuclear reactors capable of producing the raw materials for warheads and could develop enrichment facilities with relative ease. However, testing poses challenges, as replicating North Korea’s underground explosions would likely face significant opposition.

The primary obstacles are political. Going nuclear would shift South Korea from a respected member of the world’s democracies to a proliferation pariah, with unpredictable consequences.

Such a large and costly military and scientific initiative would be hard to conceal, and exposure could lead to expulsion from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and international condemnation. This concern influenced President Yoon’s decision to rule out nuclearisation, despite receiving renewed security guarantees from Joe Biden. A nuclear South Korea would face sanctions similar to those imposed on North Korea.

Under the Glenn Amendment, a US president is legally obligated to impose sanctions on any NPT signatory that detonates a nuclear weapon, including withdrawal of military support. This could leave South Korea in a perilous limbo — neither fully nuclear nor fully protected, vulnerable to a potential preemptive strike from the North.

“For South Korea, the decision to go nuclear comes with trade-offs and consequences too enormous to bear,” The Times quoted American nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker as saying.

“The South can have its own nuclear arsenal — at great expense and sacrifice — or work with the Americans to remain under the nuclear umbrella with American troops stationed on the peninsula. It cannot have both,” added Hecker.

Cheong from the Sejong Institute noted that India, after going nuclear and facing sanctions, successfully re-established itself as a respected member of the international community.

“It doesn’t require active support, just tacit acceptance,” he was quoted as saying, suggesting South Korea could follow India’s path by first acquiring nuclear weapons and later gaining US acquiescence.

A nuclear-armed South Korea would create significant discomfort for Japan, which has tense relations with its neighbor. This would spark a similar debate in Tokyo, where Japan could quickly pursue its own nuclear deterrent. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would face unprecedented pressure, raising fears of a “nuclear domino effect” in the region, potentially involving countries like Taiwan and Vietnam.

When pollsters highlight the complexities and costs of nuclearisation, public support drops to around 40 percent. However, like a powerful genie out of the bottle, the discussion about a South Korean bomb is unlikely to fade.

With inputs from agencies