Another interesting tidbit about Korea and Nukes

[j1j2j3]

cnn article 1

cnn article 2

It may seem that even South Korea is aming for nukes now. Understandable as deterrence if North Korea succeeds with their nuclear program.

Japanese media doesn't like that South Korea is developing nuclear weapons and have made a big issue of the above.

So what do you think will happen if ....

1. Both South and North with nukes.
2. Only the North with nukes.
3. Only the South with nukes.

Also do you think either state actually has the capability (technically or politically) to develop nuclear weapons?

[Master of Ossus]

Probably the North will develop nuclear weapons, and then South Korea will attempt to match that. That will almost mandate that Japan begin its own nuclear program, which China will take offense to and get everyone to back down.

[Beowulf]

Probably the North will develop nuclear weapons, and then South Korea will attempt to match that. That will almost mandate that Japan begin its own nuclear program, which China will take offense to and get everyone to back down.

I doubt that South Korea would try to get nukes. N. Korea tossing nukes is certain to get some U.S. servicemembers killed, which would bring the U.S. in, turning Pyongyang into a parking lot.

[Master of Ossus]

Probably the North will develop nuclear weapons, and then South Korea will attempt to match that. That will almost mandate that Japan begin its own nuclear program, which China will take offense to and get everyone to back down.

I doubt that South Korea would try to get nukes. N. Korea tossing nukes is certain to get some U.S. servicemembers killed, which would bring the U.S. in, turning Pyongyang into a parking lot.

It's not that SK will be worried about winning a war in the North. They do, however, need to maintain an effective deterrance, and part of that in this case is the development of nuclear arms.

[Beowulf]

Probably the North will develop nuclear weapons, and then South Korea will attempt to match that. That will almost mandate that Japan begin its own nuclear program, which China will take offense to and get everyone to back down.

I doubt that South Korea would try to get nukes. N. Korea tossing nukes is certain to get some U.S. servicemembers killed, which would bring the U.S. in, turning Pyongyang into a parking lot.

It's not that SK will be worried about winning a war in the North. They do, however, need to maintain an effective deterrance, and part of that in this case is the development of nuclear arms.

The deterrance is currently being provided by the USAF and the USN. There's a reason why we have bases in S. Korea.

[j1j2j3]

The deterrance is currently being provided by the USAF and the USN. There's a reason why we have bases in S. Korea.

That is only political deterrance.

In terms of conventional warfare, 38000(soon to be reduced) forces and some aircraft wont really matter much in terms of winning or losing. The war will be over before U.S. assistance arrives in earnest.


And do you think that South Korea will settle for a nuclear armed North and only having a couple of U.S. jets as deterrance?

[Master of Ossus]

The deterrance is currently being provided by the USAF and the USN. There's a reason why we have bases in S. Korea.

The US has less than 50,000 troops in the region, and its airbases are relatively small and would be swamped by the sheer size of the North's army and military equipment. The nearest American forces in a large enough quantity to make a difference would be Japan, and would probably take months to get them mobilized and to the front.

The South would not and should not settle for counting on American intervention to save them from a nuclear-equipped North Korea.

[Mange]

I doubt that these experiments could be called a serious attempt to aquire nukes.

[j1j2j3]

The South would not and should not settle for counting on American intervention to save them from a nuclear-equipped North Korea.

So do you think that the rest of the world would just live with a nuclear armed South Korea? Especially Japan and China?

And since it wouldn't be an effective deterrant if the North finishes first and the South starts it's nuclear program when the North is done, is there a possiblity that the South preemptively develops weapons first?

And I'm still not convinced that the South can actually make nuclear weapons in the first place, having lots of nuclear reactors and fissile material is still not the same as having the technical capability to make a weapon and effective delivery system. Is this even possible?

[LordShaithis]

If North Korea can do it, I don't see why South Korea can't.

[j1j2j3]

I doubt that these experiments could be called a serious attempt to aquire nukes.

These experiments are hardly serious but it hints that the government is considering the possibility.

And since these experiments are respectivly 12 and 4 years old, added with repeated cover ups and uncooperative behavior with the IAEA there is a distinct possiblity that more has transpired, especially in light of the Norths nuclear program growing into an actual threat.

[j1j2j3]

If North Korea can do it, I don't see why South Korea can't.

I don't see the problem with a fatboy but the South has nothing in the sorts of a missile delivery sytem.

And you still need a lot of technical expertise to make a viable missile based nuclear weapon. That's why I'm not convinced it's even technically possible.

[The Cleric]

The deterrance is currently being provided by the USAF and the USN. There's a reason why we have bases in S. Korea.

That is only political deterrance.

In terms of conventional warfare, 38000(soon to be reduced) forces and some aircraft wont really matter much in terms of winning or losing. The war will be over before U.S. assistance arrives in earnest.


And do you think that South Korea will settle for a nuclear armed North and only having a couple of U.S. jets as deterrance?

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of our forces in SK. They're there as a reminder. If NK wants to fuck with SK, they'll hit US forces, which will bring hte entire might of the United States Armed Forces down on NK. Even if Kim is unstable, he's not retarded.

[Beowulf]

The deterrance is currently being provided by the USAF and the USN. There's a reason why we have bases in S. Korea.

That is only political deterrance.

In terms of conventional warfare, 38000(soon to be reduced) forces and some aircraft wont really matter much in terms of winning or losing. The war will be over before U.S. assistance arrives in earnest.


And do you think that South Korea will settle for a nuclear armed North and only having a couple of U.S. jets as deterrance?

In a conventional war, S. Korea wins. It goes nuclear, the U.S. has boomers and bombers.

And the U.S. really only has to fly the troops in to meet up with the pre-emplaced equipment.

[j1j2j3]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of our forces in SK. They're there as a reminder. If NK wants to fuck with SK, they'll hit US forces, which will bring hte entire might of the United States Armed Forces down on NK. Even if Kim is unstable, he's not retarded.

You are describing a political tripwire which I was also describing.

[j1j2j3]

In a conventional war, S. Korea wins. It goes nuclear, the U.S. has boomers and bombers.

And the U.S. really only has to fly the troops in to meet up with the pre-emplaced equipment.

As you say, in conventional war it won't really matter because the war will be over before U.S. assistance actually makes a difference. Even flying in troops will take more time than the war itself.

Again, do you really think that South Korea will settle for a nuclear armed North only having a U.S.(albeit an ally but still foreign) "boomers and bombers" as deterrance?

[Master of Ossus]

So do you think that the rest of the world would just live with a nuclear armed South Korea? Especially Japan and China?

Since China and Japan have largely ignored the nuclear North, I see no conceivable reason why they should prevent SK from developing nuclear weapons.

And since it wouldn't be an effective deterrant if the North finishes first and the South starts it's nuclear program when the North is done, is there a possiblity that the South preemptively develops weapons first?

Yeah, but I doubt that it's going to happen since NK may already have nuclear weapons.

And I'm still not convinced that the South can actually make nuclear weapons in the first place, having lots of nuclear reactors and fissile material is still not the same as having the technical capability to make a weapon and effective delivery system. Is this even possible?

Why wouldn't it be? SK is vastly more developed than NK, and NK seems to have pulled it off quite handily.

[Sea Skimmer]

As you say, in conventional war it won't really matter because the war will be over before U.S. assistance actually makes a difference. Even flying in troops will take more time than the war itself.

Again, do you really think that South Korea will settle for a nuclear armed North only having a U.S.(albeit an ally but still foreign) "boomers and bombers" as deterrance?

Germany did, and they faced a far larger and far more credible threat. The South has steadly been cutting troop levels and military spending, and a nuclear program isn't going to look good on the books because it wouldn't allow for further convetional weapons cuts. Its far more likely that the South will spend money to upgrade the convetional weapons its air force has then to build nukes.