Media: South Korea may place US in difficult position

The nuclearisation of South Korea would place the US in a challenging predicament. 

The US would face the choice of sanctioning a close ally, jeopardising the alliance, or attempting to bypass sanctions, which could undermine US efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation elsewhere. If any country, including South Korea, seeks to develop nuclear weapons, the US executive branch is legally obligated to impose stringent economic and military sanctions, Caliber.Az reports, citing foreign media.

The most comprehensive of these is the Glenn Amendment, which would cut off foreign aid, halt defence sales, and military financing; block US credits or guarantees; require opposition to multilateral lending; and prohibit specific technology exports if South Korea were to conduct a nuclear test. Notably, the amendment has no waiver provision, meaning that only an act of Congress could lift the sanctions. While Seoul might be tempted to circumvent these sanctions through deception or covert actions, the likelihood of remaining undetected by intelligence agencies, IAEA inspectors, or open-source investigators is quite low.

There are valid reasons for South Korea to consider acquiring nuclear weapons, particularly given the nuclear threats from an antagonistic North Korea. However, this move carries significant risks. The most challenging phase would likely be the first decade or two as a newly nuclear-armed Seoul and its adversaries navigate this new landscape. While it's possible that the two Koreas could avoid major crises, the ongoing tensions on the Peninsula cast doubt on this outcome. Scholars and officials in nuclear affairs have long warned that an increase in the number of nuclear-armed states heightens the risks of arms races, crises, and potential nuclear conflict. 

Such conflicts would have widespread implications for international relations and domestic sentiments globally. The situation might be less concerning if advocates for South Korean nuclear weapons and their supporters in the US acknowledged these challenges and devised effective strategies to address them. Seoul would expect its primary ally to uphold its extended deterrence commitments and maintain troop deployments as South Korea builds its arsenal. 

This places Washington in a complex position. After spending decades trying to prevent South Korea and other nations from going nuclear, the US would now be faced with the prospect of risking American lives to defend a nuclear-armed South Korea, despite the belief that such weapons would render US defence unnecessary. The US has already relaxed or adjusted long-standing nonproliferation norms to benefit allies like India, Australia, and potentially Saudi Arabia. This has fueled suspicions in China, Russia, and beyond that the nonproliferation regime is neither universal nor based on rules, but rather a tool for the US to contain or weaken its adversaries. 

If Washington were to tolerate or support South Korean proliferation, numerous countries would align with Moscow and Beijing in criticising this as yet another instance of US hypocrisy in promoting a rules-based international order. In such a scenario, China and Russia would have strong motivations and a precedent to either ignore or actively help US adversaries in obtaining nuclear weapons as a means of counterbalancing US influence.

By Naila Huseynova