South Korea is a democratic state located in East Asia. For more than one thousand years, it was under Chinese rule. Afterwards, South Korea was occupied by Japan until Japan's defeat in World War Two. Then, the great powers (the USA and the Soviet Union) divided the world map. Regarding the Korean Peninsula, they decided to divide it into North and South Korea. However, a new war erupted between the newly established states, known as the Korean War. The Korean War was characterized as one of the most obvious forms of the Cold War and lasted three years, ending in 1953. At the end of the Korean War, the peninsula was re-divided into the states of North and South Korea, which remain separate to this day.

Nowadays, North Korea is one of the countries that have nuclear weapons. In contrast, South Korea has, for decades, relied on its alliance with the USA, so there are no individual nuclear weapons under its sovereignty. However, due to the threat from North Korea and the potential risk of USA abandonment, South Korea’s insurance policy has radically shifted from not having nuclear weapons to obtaining nuclear latency (Kim, 2024). Specifically, nuclear latency refers to the capability to produce and develop nuclear power without immediate acquisition of the weapons themselves. It seems that South Korea wants to be prepared in case of emergency; since Japan went nuclear, South Korea remains the only country in East Asia without nuclear weaponry.

However, nuclear weapons latency is a complicated decision, especially when opinions vary. Public opinion in South Korea favors nuclear armament, with support rates exceeding 70%1. Conversely, policymakers are cautious, considering forthcoming risks, such as potential sanctions imposed by the USA and democratic issues that may arise. South Korea aspires at least to match North Korea's nuclear weapons, which are estimated to total approximately seventy (Dalton and Perkovich, 2024). If South Korea begins to apply the latency policy, then further advancement in technological enrichment is necessary to achieve its goal within two to three years. Specifically, submarine nuclear capabilities are currently considered the most suitable choice due to the country’s limited geographical space and because submarine nuclear weapons require less time to be produced compared to other nuclear options.

Given that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous on Earth, the risks are undeniably high (Nuclear Weapons, United Nations). Environmental and democratic concerns arise, historically taking ten to twenty years of tension after a country's nuclear acquisition for both regional and global balance to be re-established. The risk is significantly higher when the international arena is as unstable as it is today. Nevertheless, one crucial factor will influence South Korea’s decisions on nuclear weaponry: the outcome of the upcoming USA elections, the new President’s external policy direction in East Asia, and the sanctions that may be imposed on South Korea if it pursues latency. In any case, sanctions will likely have a deep impact on South Korea’s economy. Consequently, financial issues may arise, mostly affecting the lives of the country's population2.

Regarding international agreements on nuclear weapons, there are numerous frameworks to prevent states from acquiring them. More specifically, the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ), the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the Secretary-General’s policy brief on A New Agenda for Peace (NAFP) represent some international cooperative efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote global disarmament3. Given that nuclear weaponry is an issue with immediate consequences for the entire planet, international agreements should be enforced by all states to create a more peaceful world without the fear of nuclear threat.

Considering the above analysis, it is clear that South Korea faces a decisive dilemma on whether to initiate the latency processes for nuclear weapons ownership. In any case, both policymakers and elites should consider every detail before making an active decision. The result of the upcoming USA election will be pivotal for South Korea’s nuclear policy and its subsequent continuation.

References

1 Kim, Lami, South Korea’s nuclear latency dilemma, War on the rocks, 2024.
2 Dalton and Perkovich, South Korea goes nuclear. Then what?, Foreign Policy, 2024.
3 Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, Office for Disarmament Affairs.