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!
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.
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.
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.
North Korea has nuclear capability and has threatened to use it many, many times to destroy South Korea. So, if South Korea had nuclear weapons, South Korea would be more safe and they would be able to protect their country. In many cases, the USA was helping us, but with these weapons, South Korea would be able to protect themselves.
South Korea should have nukes. Because then they can get the North Koreans on their own terms. In addition the more countries that have nukes the less likely they are to fire them. This is why nuclear disarmament is a fools bargain.
Also the United States and South Korea should kill Kim Jong Un and his buddies to disrupt the power structure then invade the country and bring the gdp up to reasonable levels before reunification.
There now is a shift in balance of military power on the Korean peninsula, with North Korea armed with nuclear weapons. It is unclear how the ROK-US alliance will hold, if faced with other political situations and threats. There is always a chance the US may not come to the defense of its ally, and it makes sense for South Korea to develop and keep its own nuclear weapons to protect itself. It is naive to blindly oppose WMD, especially when a nation faces immediate threats by one.
If North Korea has them why shouldn't South Korea?? The North and South could spy back and forth all they want but in the end they really need the defense. The North has been testing A LOT lately and can spy get plans from China or Russia if they need to or spy on them - who cares...
Self protection is no crime.
Unlike conventional deterrence in previous eras, nuclear deterrence is extremely robust because even irrational or unintelligent leaders are likely to recognize the exceedingly high cost of nuclear war. Thus, proponents of nuclear deterrence claim with a high degree of confidence that “the probability of major war among states having nuclear weapons approaches zero”.
South Korea, alone, must learn how to deal with their problem without the help of the United States. If, South Korea had a nuclear weapon, no country would be helping, such as the United States. Also, one of the main reasons why NK is attacking SK is because they hate how US is supporting South Korea. The US needs to stop using taxes on wars;,therefore a retreat from South Korea, repealing the treaty that forbids SK of making nuclear bombs.
The U.S. couldn't stop Pakistan or North Korea, among the world's most dysfunctional and impoverished states, from developing them, and it certainly isn't going to attack South Korea for doing so. Sanctions and condemnation will likely push South Korea to work more closely with Russia and China, and may also perversely repel the Japanese who are also nervous about American guarantees to defend Japan from nuclear attack. To summarize, South Korea has restrained from developing nuclear weapons for diplomatic reasons, not financial or technical ones. It is now experiencing an existential threat from a nuclear North Korea and rising China, and cannot be expected to depend on U.S. guarantees of nuclear protection.
They should be able to protect themselves from threatening North Korea. All countries should have the right to possess some nuclear weapons for their own safety, as long as they agree to a treaty. It would not be possible to get rid of all nuclear weapons in the world, and they should not be controlled by only like 8 countries.
North Korea is known to be pursuing various unknown military research and training operations, of which one could be pursuit of nuclear weapons, and which pose a threat to various nations including South Korea. North Korea has attacked South Korean vessels/buildings multiple times in the past decade and has inhibited peaceful relations.
No other nation should tell another nation what to do and what it can and cannot have. South Korea has been under threat of a North Korean invasion for decades and has the right to defend itself. Their communist sister state has a million armed men to throw into conflict, and nuclear weapons are the only possible deterrent with enough firepower to counter that threat.
To say whether or not one country can or cannot posses something that many other countries do is unfair. If one were to argue that they can't possess them, the very reasons given for the denial would apply to every other country. It is an unfair advantage to possess them, but not allow others to, so this should not be allowed.
Non-nuclear countries are bound by the NPT not to build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and South Korea is a party to the Treaty, but North Korea's withdrawal, building of nuclear weapons, and belligerent actions over a long period of time would make a South Korean decision to withdraw and pursue such weapons as a deterrent understandable. On the other hand, the U.S. is fully committed to South Korea's defense, and even without a nuclear arsenal, Seoul has a formidable military deterrent against the North. So the question of the moral and legal right to act to acquire nuclear weapons needs to be separated explicitly from the question of the wisdom of such a decision. Arguably, all proliferation decisions ought to be presumptively regarded as inappropriate, since each time a nation acquires nuclear status others are apt to become motivated to follow suit.
Nuclear weapons are dangerous for even stable countries to possess. A weapon of such destructive power should not even exist. I understand the use of force to get a message across, but global annihilation is not really a good choice. If South Korea were to possess nuclear weapons and use them on their neighbor (North Korea) in the event of an invasion, this would more than likely spur a worldwide catastrophe. Tempers would flare, and the world as we know it would probably enter a nuclear holocaust.
It is my position that South Korea has proven itself to be a nation that attempts to work with the international community and exercise appropriately good judgment in its interaction in the global world. South Korea has been rendered impotent to protect its peoples and nation while North Korea batters them with its nuclear threats. No people should have to live under these threats from a ruler who is incapable of rational decision making.
I believe that South Korea is allowed to possess nuclear weapons. This is because each country is for itself, and if something breaks out, each country has the right to protect itself. No country should be going to any business of another country due to the threat of a nuclear war. If the Koreans decide they want to hold the weapons, any other country going against this should make their own weapons in case it comes to a time to use them.
Although I am against any use of nuclear weapons, South Korea is very vulnerable to North Korea, since this country's leader seems determined to have nuclear capabilities. South Korea having nuclear weapons might deter North Korea somewhat if they were considering using nuclear force against another country. I think, for their own protection, the South Korean military could possess short range nuclear weapons to help neutralize or equalize things with the North Korean regime.
Due to the production of North Korean nuclear missiles and testing 1n 2009, South Korea should be able to produce weapons to defend its citizens. With the U.S. planning to hand defense of South Korea over the South Korean government in 2012, they need to have a plan of defense in place to discourage a North Korean invasion. North Korean leaders have proven to be unstable and willing to break international sanctions.
Its egotistical for other countries to dictate the abilities of another country in the allowance of munitions. Especially when they carry several times more. Thus if the ability exists, South Korea should be able, especially with a loose cannon in the north. Ultimately countries should no the ferocity of such weapons and not bring them to bear.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mass destructive weapons pose a greater threat for humanity. Territories can be defended in many ways and destroying life in greater numbers is not required. Having such technology particularly with countries, such as South Korea, which are subjected to continuous conflict, is not safe.
Clearly there is no good reason to have nuclear weapons available to any nation. I know that some would argue that South Korea would be justified by having this as a protection against their crazy northern neighbor, but it doesn't justify it. Everyone knows that if one country set of nuclear weapons then the world would go berserk. One would also say that having nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a dangerous enemy would be like having a gun to defend off a bully. You could justify it, but would you want to?
South Korea has signed the NPT, which obliges that country to not develop nuclear weapons. Also, as North Korea is believed to possess a few nuclear weapons, allowing South Korea to have nuclear arms would guarantee a nuclear escalation in that fragile part of the world, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
South Korea has been testing nuclear weapons for years and hiding their testing from the rest of the world. The fact that a country has the ability to launch a potentially devastating attack at any time causes grave concern to many neighboring nations. This possession should not be allowed, unless equal possession is given to all other countries, and a worldwide law or set of rules should be established for nuclear weaponry and its testing.