Should South Korea be allowed to posses nuclear weapons?

  • South Korea should stop being dependent to the US Army.

    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.

  • No one should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

    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.

    Posted by: M4ck3God2iIIa
  • The U.S. is impotent to stop the South Koreans from developing nuclear weapons, so we may as well direct and profit from it.

    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.

  • South Korea is allowed to posses nuclear weapons because the weapons give the country a sense of security as a whole.

    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.

    Posted by: N34rIyGaIv
  • They should be allowed to have short range ones to help neutralize the threat from North Korea.

    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.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • South Korea should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

    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.

    Posted by: KourtneyB
  • While it would be better not to, a country has that right free from everyone else

    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.

    Posted by: Bear
  • Yes

    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.

  • Yes, because North Korea continues to take an aggressive, arrogant stance towards international issues.

    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.

    Posted by: AloofHarry56
  • Yes, South Korea should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, they are a sovereign nation.

    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.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • South Korea should not posses nuclear weapons; There is no need for them, and there is no benefit of any country possessing them.

    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.

    Posted by: LeticiaR
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons!

    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?

    Posted by: MariaR
  • South Korea should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

    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.

    Posted by: jabular
  • 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

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.