US extended deterrence likely to top SCM agenda

Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup, right, poses with his U.S. counterpart, Lloyd Austin, before their talks on the sidelines of a security forum in Singapore, June 11. Courtesy of Ministry of National Defense

Experts negative about South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons

By Kang Seung-woo

Upcoming security talks between the defense chiefs of South Korea and the United States are expected to focus on how to respond to North Korea's advancing nuclear and missile arsenal, better known as the U.S.' strategy of extended deterrence against Pyongyang's aggression, according to diplomatic observers, Tuesday.

Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup and his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, are scheduled to hold a Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) in Washington, D.C., Thursday (local time).

The annual defense talks come as North Korea is anticipated to detonate another nuclear device before the U.S. midterm elections, which are scheduled for Nov. 8, based on its past track record of causing trouble around U.S. election time. In addition, the Kim Jong-un regime has ratcheted up tensions on the Korean Peninsula by staging a range of military provocations from dispatching warplanes near the border to firing a volley of ballistic missiles and artillery shells.

"The issue at the top of the SCM agenda is North Korean assertiveness in its barrage of testing ballistic missiles and lately firing artillery shells in their version of 'exercise diplomacy' ― to demonstrate their hostility to U.S.-ROK military exercises," said Robert Manning, a distinguished senior fellow at Washington-based think tank the Stimson Center. The ROK refers to the Republic of Korea, South Korea's official name.

In October, the allies staged a combined naval exercise, involving a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, while the two nation's air forces are currently conducting large-scale joint air training featuring the F-35A and F-35B stealth fighters.

"The immediate challenge is how to respond to Pyongyang's provocative military actions ― including a possible forthcoming seventh nuclear weapons test ― without risking escalation. The long-term problem is how to strengthen deterrence, as the totality of North Korean short, medium and long-range ballistic missile tests, SLBM missiles over the past 18 months or so have altered the military balance," Manning said.

"They are seeking to create a triad to have a survivable nuclear second-strike capacity," Manning said.

During the May 21 summit, President Yoon Suk-yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden agreed on extended deterrence so as to deter North Korea's escalating missile and nuclear threats. In addition, the two nations have reactivated regular meetings of the Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group (EDSCG), a high-level consultative mechanism to achieve the North's denuclearization through steadfast deterrence.

However, its first EDSCG meeting, held in September for the first time in nearly five years, failed to reach an agreement on the U.S.' immediate and automatic retaliation in response to a North Korean nuclear attack against its southern neighbor.

"Seoul, in light of its challenging security situation, will likely want to see deeper discussions on the credibility of the U.S. extended deterrence during the SCM," said Soo Kim, a policy analyst at U.S. think tank the RAND Corporation.

"This is of course an important topic for Washington, as well. But given the sensitivities surrounding the issue ― and the allies appear to be wary of reactions from elsewhere ― we probably should not expect significant progress in the way of concrete measures to enhance the credibility of extended deterrence," Kim said.

Amid the intensification of North Korea's nuclear threats and misgivings about the U.S.' commitment to extended deterrence, some in South Korea have called for nuclear weapons in the South or the reintroduction of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula, raising some speculation that the issue could possibly be on the table. The U.S. removed its tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991.

"Given the perceived sensitivities surrounding the prospects of a U.S. ally going nuclear, this has been one of the 'tread lightly' issues between the two countries," Kim said.

"At present, we're unlikely to see anything definitive on this front. The decision itself bears significant implications for the region beyond the Korean Peninsula ― so the question has not only to do with Seoul's nuclearization, but whether the allies, and most importantly, Seoul, will be able to handle the consequences of such a decision," Kim said.

According to a September poll by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, slightly more than half of South Korean nationals, or 55.5 percent, supported the development of a domestic nuclear weapons program.

The U.S. government has shown signs of objection in response, as evidenced by U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Philip Goldberg, who said last month that all talk about tactical nuclear weapons is "irresponsible and dangerous" because it doesn't help the situation.

Manning said that having nuclear weapons in South Korea would be a counter-productive move.

"The U.S. has the ability to respond to North Korean attacks with nuclear weapons on SLBMs and by other means. The calls to return tactical nuclear weapons to the ROK would make no military difference, and would (instead) make South Korea a target," he said.

"Similarly, Seoul obtaining its own nuclear weapons would raise questions in the US about the US-ROK alliance and still make South Korea a target," Manning stressed.

Kim also said the issue is an extremely "complex and provocative" topic.

"In short, it's difficult to gauge the pulse of the policy community's views on the matter. We know for sure that the issue is one that polarizes the community, but when push comes to shove and the allies are in a bind in managing the security threat from the North, are the current capabilities sufficient to successfully deal with a North Korean contingency?" Kim said.

"It's unclear how much of the public debate on this issue reflects the true concerns and deliberations of decision-makers in Seoul and Washington," she said.