4 ms·

The US doctrine on nuclear stuff is (paraphrasing here) "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." There are very few countries that we tr

The US doctrine on nuclear stuff is (paraphrasing here) "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." There are very few countries that we trust enough to hand over a job as important as nuclear deterrent. Australia would be a much better choice from an allied perspective but their military is much too small to be a real deterrent against China. Combining Australia, Japan, and South Korea might be an effective deterrent, but we still don't trust Japan and China will never let a nuclear South Korea happen. Letting Japan have nuclear weapons is many decades in the future. The US monitors/controls the development of the JSDF very closely. They were only recently [1] allowed to have an "aircraft carrier." (edit 2: This presupposes that Japan even wants nuclear weapons. They, of all countries, would think twice about something that has destroyed two of their cities- also the "peaceful" application of nuclear power has devastated the area around Fukushima. New Zealand has a strong anti-nuke sentiment and they were only used as a test site.) South Korea is so close to China that their defensive reaction time is effectively zero. The same goes for China's reaction time from a South Korean missile. China would be extremely upset (to the point of sabotaging missile installations) if we were to allow South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Imagine if China allied with Mexico and started helping them with a nuclear program. The US would go apeshit. (edit: Rather than make up a hypothetical, just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to figure out how crazy it could be. Why did I not just use that example in the first place?) The US wants to control its own nuclear weapons and would rather lease bases from allies than to let the allies have their own weapons. This increases the perceived security of the weapons (from being stolen), as most military commanders believe that their own base is a much more secure place to keep nukes than someone else's base. Whether or not this is true is up for debate. Manning your own defenses instead of an ally also increases your perceived defensive readiness. Most commanders also believe that their own troops are better prepared than someone else's troops. Whether or not this is true is also up for debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_de...

QAPereo 9y ago
and China will never let a nuclear South Korea happen. It’s possible, although highly unlikely that the RoK could go nuclear in a manner similar to Israel, and in essence, China wouldn’t have a say. Never say never, just based on the strength of opposition.
- gozur88 9y ago
  If the South Koreans wanted to go nuclear there isn't a damn thing the Chinese could do about it. It would serve them right, too, since they're mostly responsible for the mess that is North Korea.
- yongjik 9y ago
  Israel can do that because it always has the US at its back and it doesn't really care what Iran or Egypt think. South Korea, on the other hand, cannot hope to enjoy that kind of support (can you name one prominent Korean-American politician?), and China is its biggest trade partner. That is, South Korea has little to gain and a lot to lose by developing nukes.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    They have the same thing which any country has to gain from a nuclear arsenal; a near guarantee against outright invasion. As for Israel they did it, like Pakistan and India, because they could, and once they had no one could stop them. That’s pretty much why the DPRK wants them, although they’d probably sell the tech too.
    - yongjik 9y ago
      North Korea wants nuke because (1) they're genuinely afraid of American invasion, and (2) they're already an international pariah so additional sanctions mean little. They have something to gain from nukes, and not much to lose. As for South Korea, it can bulldoze over North Korea with conventional weapons. It doesn't need nukes to defend against North Korea. On the other hand, China has so much firepower that having a few nukes won't tip the balance much, so nukes are not much useful against China either. Now consider that South Korea is practically an island country, heavily dependent on trade. Almost all its neighbors will vehemently protest a nuclear program, and its economy will suffer greatly. AND it will increase tension in East Asia. And probably provoke Japan into its own nuclear program. Just what we need. Frankly, as a South Korean, I cannot think of a single desirable outcome that can follow a nuclear program. If we're serious about national defense, what we really need now is not nukes but a powerful navy that can secure our trade routes.
Spooky23 9y ago
The US has a airtight strategy against external threat. But the scenario we are living... an unhinged and/or ignorant POTUS undermines the effectiveness of the strategy. In Europe, you had an independent deterrent of sorts with the UK and France, but no such balance in the Pacific and Mideast. I don’t think the RAND corporation in the 60s thought up of a scenario where a President taunted a foreign nuclear power and professional sports figures in his spare time. Eventually the novelty of the mercurial nature of the guy will wane, and scary shit can result.
- mercurialshark 9y ago
  > I don’t think the RAND corporation in the 60s thought up of a scenario where a President taunted a foreign nuclear power and professional sports figures in his spare time. Actually, that's literally what Henry Kissinger and Nixon collaborated closely on. Kissinger diplomatically told his Soviet counterparts that Nixon's rhetoric wasn't simply posturing, but that Nixon was making him nervous and was quite possibly unhinged and might casually order the use of nuclear weapons upon provocation. In short, it worked. While it wasn't entirely a feign, Nixon wanted Kissinger to convey the sentiment that if the USSR were to grandstand or make possibly threatening overtures, that it may very realistically escalate the situation and that they indeed be may be facing a madman hellbent on finding an excuse to unleash the US nuclear arsenal on the USSR.

QAPereo 9y ago

and China will never let a nuclear South Korea happen. It’s possible, although highly unlikely that the RoK could go nuclear in a manner similar to Israel, and in essence, China wouldn’t have a say. Never say never, just based on the strength of opposition.

gozur88 9y ago
If the South Koreans wanted to go nuclear there isn't a damn thing the Chinese could do about it. It would serve them right, too, since they're mostly responsible for the mess that is North Korea.
yongjik 9y ago
Israel can do that because it always has the US at its back and it doesn't really care what Iran or Egypt think. South Korea, on the other hand, cannot hope to enjoy that kind of support (can you name one prominent Korean-American politician?), and China is its biggest trade partner. That is, South Korea has little to gain and a lot to lose by developing nukes.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  They have the same thing which any country has to gain from a nuclear arsenal; a near guarantee against outright invasion. As for Israel they did it, like Pakistan and India, because they could, and once they had no one could stop them. That’s pretty much why the DPRK wants them, although they’d probably sell the tech too.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    North Korea wants nuke because (1) they're genuinely afraid of American invasion, and (2) they're already an international pariah so additional sanctions mean little. They have something to gain from nukes, and not much to lose. As for South Korea, it can bulldoze over North Korea with conventional weapons. It doesn't need nukes to defend against North Korea. On the other hand, China has so much firepower that having a few nukes won't tip the balance much, so nukes are not much useful against China either. Now consider that South Korea is practically an island country, heavily dependent on trade. Almost all its neighbors will vehemently protest a nuclear program, and its economy will suffer greatly. AND it will increase tension in East Asia. And probably provoke Japan into its own nuclear program. Just what we need. Frankly, as a South Korean, I cannot think of a single desirable outcome that can follow a nuclear program. If we're serious about national defense, what we really need now is not nukes but a powerful navy that can secure our trade routes.

Spooky23 9y ago

The US has a airtight strategy against external threat. But the scenario we are living... an unhinged and/or ignorant POTUS undermines the effectiveness of the strategy. In Europe, you had an independent deterrent of sorts with the UK and France, but no such balance in the Pacific and Mideast. I don’t think the RAND corporation in the 60s thought up of a scenario where a President taunted a foreign nuclear power and professional sports figures in his spare time. Eventually the novelty of the mercurial nature of the guy will wane, and scary shit can result.

mercurialshark 9y ago
> I don’t think the RAND corporation in the 60s thought up of a scenario where a President taunted a foreign nuclear power and professional sports figures in his spare time. Actually, that's literally what Henry Kissinger and Nixon collaborated closely on. Kissinger diplomatically told his Soviet counterparts that Nixon's rhetoric wasn't simply posturing, but that Nixon was making him nervous and was quite possibly unhinged and might casually order the use of nuclear weapons upon provocation. In short, it worked. While it wasn't entirely a feign, Nixon wanted Kissinger to convey the sentiment that if the USSR were to grandstand or make possibly threatening overtures, that it may very realistically escalate the situation and that they indeed be may be facing a madman hellbent on finding an excuse to unleash the US nuclear arsenal on the USSR.