Should South Korea be allowed to posses nuclear weapons?

  • Yes, give South Korea nuclear weapons.

    The way it is now, China has leverage over the United States since they control North Korea, which is a major threat to America. The U.S. has repeatedly asked China to halt North Korea's nuclear program, but China has done nothing so far. Maybe if we gave South Korea nuclear weapons, we could put pressure on China to actually do something on the North Korean issue.

  • Yes south Korea should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

    I am not in support of countries to posses nuclear weapons. But if countries like us can have nuclear weapons then why not South Korea?
    SK has already made it clear hat they would not be harming other countries with their weapons.So they shoulb allowed to posses th weapons.It would make them have a sense of security and also make them less vulnerable to NK.

  • Yes south Korea should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

    I am not in support of countries to posses nuclear weapons. But if countries like us can have nuclear weapons then why not South Korea?
    SK has already made it clear hat they would not be harming other countries with their weapons.So they shoulb allowed to posses th weapons.It would make them have a sense of security and also make them less vulnerable to NK.

  • SK should be able to protect them self

    I as a SK person think that i am not in a safe zone right now. NK developing nuke weapons and we have nothing to do if they attack. I think that the only way to show NK we have the power to protect our self is to build a nuke weapon. People might disagree because of the money and the radiation near by, but it will be better than living in a danger zone. And chinese people who are looking at this, do not disturb SK from building THADD unless you are going to protect us from the nuke

  • Threats from surrounding nations make nuclear weapons absolutely necessary

    Due to mass majority of East Asian hatred for other east asian nations, South korea should have nuclear weapons to deal with, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and North Korean threats. Furthermore, Nuclear weapons give a sense of security from other nations. We can see that many nations with nuclear weapons do not fear for safety. Finally the ROK needs to be less dependent on the US. Dependence has destroyed korean culture in general and has made it more american

  • Republic of Korea (aka South Korea) should own its own nuclear weapons.

    As it was seen in Yeonpyeung attack by Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), ROK does not have any specific plans except for castigating the DPRK in public. Would U.S. still be able to shoot a nuclear weapon in DPRK if either China or Russia says they will protect DPRK? My guess would be "No"; therefore, ROK should own nuclear weapon.

  • South Korea can't rely on the US interests in that region

    If the US won't have their current interest or will be in very bad financial condition then South Korea must have the ability to protect itself and prevent North Korea from enslaving them. North Korea is a tragic state. It's a shame that no country is doing anything to help them!

  • North Korea's real intention with its nuclear weapons is to threaten; not use. South Korea would only use the nuclear weapons for controlling North Korea.

    The broadcasts of the world report North Korea's nuclear development as a clear threat; and if they show any signs of using the bomb, the people of other countries panic. I think that happened about 2 months ago. But nobody in South Korea panicked. Why? Actually, shouldn't they be the most worried? But everybody in South Korea knows that North Korea is never going to use those nuclear weapons. They know that it will cause World War III, and with their current skills; they can't get it to go to the U.S. They won't target any nearby countries, especially South Korea- it would destroy their country just as well. One strong nuclear bomb in South Korea and the small piece of land would just blast off. North Korea does not intend to really shoot the weapons. They merely use it as a way to get more food and aid.
    So now I get to my real point. South Korea would never possess nuclear weapons to use anyway. It is just needed to stop getting threats from North Korea. Do you know how much the country spends on aiding North Korea? It's never written out in numbers, but it's tremendous. Believe me, I know. I'm a citizen of South Korea. With a nuclear weapon to deflect the threatening, we would be able to save a great deal of money.
    So what I'm saying is that we don't need nuclear weapons for self-defense like the other people in this column say, but that we just need it to equalize the situation between N. Korea and S. Korea and make North Korea unable to threaten us with nuclear weapons.

  • No more U.S. umbrella

    South Korea, my hometown, does not have any nuclear weapons at the moment. In the past, Korea did secretly have a nuclear development and this became the reason why the U.S started to be suspicious of our country. Lee Hwee So = ‘이휘소’ is the person who made the biggest development for nuclear weapons but one day, he died very suspiciously and left many rumors such as the FBI killing him on purpose. This means that the U.S does not want them to develop their nuclear weapons. Same thing comes out below.

    Let me explain this in a total of two arguments:

    Moving on to my first argument I would like to talk about how this policy is not needed right now in South Korea.
    Do we really need nuclear weapons, ladies and gentleman? The U.S has a military drill every year which means they are willing to help us when they can. In the past and at the moment, they are also thinking about putting their nuclear weapons, America’s nuclear weapons, inside of the Korean military. They are trying this much to help the Korean military in surviving in the world. We’re under the umbrella of the United States meaning that we are in no need of our own nuclear weapons and are in protection of the United States.
    The United States have helped a lot of countries in the past and are also helping a lot of countries right now with their power. The United States is a huge country that has that much power to help other countries. They are helping 13570 countries right now and have given aid and help to other countries including us in the past. In the Korean war, the U.S has helped us stand up again and made the South Korea that exists today.

    Moving on to my second argument, I would like to talk about the side effects of having our own nuclear weapons. First of all isolation. The world at the moment is trying to reduce all the nuclear weapons in the world. When they are trying their best to get rid of all these weapons, do you think that they would really like it when South Korea starts to develop our own nuclear weapons? We’re going to get isolated. We would be going against the promises we made with the whole world and the United States.

    The U.S umbrella is the USA protecting these Korean people but actually, do we need all of this? Korea can survive by itself with the Korean Umbrella of their own.
    With a nuclear weapon of our own, when its a rainy day, we no longer have to borrow America's umbrella.

  • South Korea should have nuke because of many reasons.

    First, there is something called M.A.D, which stands for "Mutually Assured Damage". So its logic is that if country A and B have nuclear weapon, neither A nor B will use the weapon first because they know that there will be a retaliation from the other country (with nukes, obviously), and no one wants to get bombed with nuclear weapon no matter what they gain. Therefore, N.K will not use nuke on ROK unless ROK fires at them first (which probably would not happen). Second, the opposition always says something like "ROK will get sanctioned by other countries, and ROK's trade will be bad and the whole economy will be bad" and etc. There won't be a sanction as long as ROK do not threat other countries with it. Look at countries like Israel and India. They have nuclear weapons, they did not get permission from UN or the five countries (US, UK, Russia, China, France), but they are not sanctioned because they only keep it as defense. Also, China, where ROK gets more than 10% of their trade, will not stop trade with ROK, because there are way too many Korean companies in China, that are giving jobs to Chinese. If China cuts trade with ROK, there will be a large number of people loosing their job at the same time. BTW, US will not leave ROK even if they get nuke because the location of ROK is very important for US, since US can keep an eye on NK and China as long as US has SOME control over ROK.

  • No. South Korea should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

    As seen in 2013, the Korean peninsula is a politically and militarily volatile area. The last thing that is required is escalate the situation and this would be guaranteed should South Korea be allowed nuclear weapons. Such a provocative act would also encourage the North to further its own nuclear and ballistic missile research and completely eliminate any chance of future dialogue between both countries. In addition China would also see this an "American" threat and may potentially further support North Korea.

  • Not important enough reasons and future possibility

    North Korea's threat is not 100 percent accurate and thus, this can't be the reason because it is not an important not threatening reason to give south Korea a privilege to own a nuke. Also one country having a nuclear weapon can lead to other neighboring countries to want to own a nuclear bomb as well. Many would know that south Korea has never been on the good side of neighboring countries like Japan and North Korea. If we own a nuke, this could want other countries like Japan to want a strong weapon as well. Thus allowing south korea to have a bomb can ruin peace between nations and become the seed of war.

  • Irresponsibility is not limited to the US

    How many times have we seen nations fail to keep their promises and lash out in anger at other countries over land disputes, or economic cold warfare? The US is not the only country that has proven itself to be irresponsible with a powerful military. Japan in the past, when given the opportunity, had invaded the East Asian continent and even attacked Pearl Harbor, opening up a whole new theater in World War 2. The United States invaded Vietnam and took millions of innocent lives just to make an anti-Communist statement. South Korea is not being singled out here, no man or group of men should ever have control over a deadly force such as nuclear weaponry. It is in the nature of humans to be easily aggravated and to make impulse decisions. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, certainly not a country with a neighbor ready to fire a missile at the press of a button.

  • I do not thing that South Korea, or any country, for that matter, should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons, as they are dangerous to the world.

    I believe that nuclear weapons are nothing but a catalyst for the end of the world. No good will come from any nation having access to such dangerous and potentially world-changing weapons. The only reason someone would need such a powerful weapon is if they wanted to eradicate a certain nation or people.

    Posted by: MomentousRhett89
  • South Korea should not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons as, in doing so, it would only exacerbate problems in the region.

    The desire for South Korea to have nuclear weapons is understandable, considering its aggressive northern neighbor and its increasingly powerful eastern neighbor. Doing so would, however, only exacerbate tensions in the region and create a dangerous arms race. One of the first results would be to encourage Japan to join the nuclear club. This, in turn, would cause China to flex its muscle and increase its presence in the Sea of Japan. This could lead to dangerous international incidents.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • I really don't like the idea of South Korea possessing nuclear weapons, because it adds to the tensions between North and South Korea.

    I don't think anyone should possess nuclear weapons, because of the risk that having them will lead to a nuclear war. North Korea is already under unstable leadership, and there's a high probability that they would believe South Korea owning nuclear weapons would be a direct challenge to them. This could lead to the catastrophic consequence of another Korean war, with the possibility of nuclear weapons being used this time.

    Posted by: TrainLock
  • No, I don't think South Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because I don't believe any country should possess nuclear weapons.

    In order to maintain stability within the region of Northeast Asia, South Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If they do, it will escalate tensions with North Korea and South Korea, as well as between North Korea and Japan. The U.S. needs to aid nuclear non-proliferation efforts to maintain peace.

    Posted by: D3vinGooble
  • No, South Korea should not be able to have any type of long range weapons that would stir up possible animosity in that region.

    South Korea should not be able to possess any type of weapons that will cause any type of unrest for any of their neighbors. South Korea has repeatedly threatened to strike out and harm any country that is in reach of their army. Any time that you have a dictator who is as unstable as Kim, you are potentially looking at trouble. This man has been threatening South Korea for years. He has constantly threatened his neighbors with violence.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • South Korea should not possess nuclear weapons, because weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to humanity. Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous and can escalate violence all over the world.

    Nuclear nonproliferation treaties have long been used as attempts to decrease the world's nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons are incredibly dangerous, as their effects are not localized to blast zones, but lead to high levels of toxic radiation throughout the world, and deplete the ozone layer. As such, every effort should be taken to decrease the current world arsenal, and to discourage new nations from adding nuclear weapons. These weapons should not be kept even for purposes of deterrence, as the threat they pose to the world if used is too severe.

    Posted by: MiIBoot
  • I oppose South Korea possessing nuclear weapons.

    South Korea should not be able to possess nuclear weapons. They are too close to North Korea where we can not ensure that they have access to the technology and research. It would be too easy for North Korean spies to infiltrate and get access to the South Korean weapons.

    Posted by: BGraham

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-07-14T14:06:28.420
Man these people don't know how to spell "possess" correctly. Guys, it's "p-o-s-s-e-s-s"
sokWARROY says2013-07-17T08:30:04.830
Lets make this clear. Those of you who says " no one should keep nuke", you guys are too idealistic. Face the reality. NK and many other countries including US already have nuke. But the problem with NK is that they are threatening others with it. Currently, US, France, Russia ect are not, so they have the justification to keep some nukes. This means that NO ONE will give up nuke. Therefore, in order to maintain "mutually assured destruction" and prevent the world from using nukes, I believe all countries should have nukes, as long as they keep it within the limited amount and use. "having" is not same as "using". I do admit that too many nukes will be dangerous, but balancing the power would actually prevent further war. No one wants to be nuked in the first place, so no one will USE one in the first place because they do not want getting nuked by that country they have just nuked.