What Happens if South Korea gets Nuclear Weapons?

In this video we’re going to explain why South Korea may want – or not want – nuclear weapons, and the consequences if it got them.

Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.

TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!

[MidWitPride]

When the previous #1 security guarantor of the world is having conversations whether to go isolationist every 4 years, I don't blame them for wanting some hard guarantees beyond just US's word to come help them if needed. If US withdrawals from the world the power vacuum will be filled one way or another. Some of that filling will be nations pursuing nukes of their own.

[bangmo]

1) Polling Questions
A) Do you prefer our country going nuclear? 70% 'Yes'
B) Do you prefer our country going nuclear, even though it involves economic sanctions, break-up of alliance, cutting-off of nuclear fuels for electiricty (about just 27.4% produced by nuclear power plants) and so on? ==> 70% 'No'

2) SK is palying a leverage game. It has all the 4 components ripe and ready:

(a) public support (very different from Japan or most of advanced countries)
(b) stored spent nuclear fuel(SNF) for more than 4, 000 warheads (40 tons of Plutonium isotope 239, in terms of content ratio. This can not be seperated nicely in the real world). Some of it is from Heavy Water Reacotrs(HWRs, three of them, much better for miniaturization of warheads than the SNF from Light Water Reactors(PWRs)),
(c) delivery means such as Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (for example, Hyunmoo-5 can hit over 5, 000 km with 1 ton warhead. Each warhead of the US ICBM weighs less than 200kg. A highest level of miniaturization using the weapon grade Pu isotope 239, higher than 93% content ratio. SK can not make weapon grade Pu in short time, since the latter requires a special, dedicated reactor, which is called Production Reactor. SK, if it ever goes nuclear, should use SNF. So the war head will become bigger in order to stabilize Pu isotope 240, which comprises more than 25%, when made from SNF, which means less than 75% Pu isotope 239. However, since the missile is powerful, it can carry this rather bulky war head.
(d)the highest level of civil nuclear technology (SK can design and build the best nuclear power plants with the lowest cost and on time).

SK has the highest level of nuclear latency in the world. Saudi is another US ally which sometimes says "we will go nuclear if Iran does", . But Saudi does not have the real stuff.

SK's real, serious latency gives it the leverage.The US can not weaken its extended deterrence. China can not push SK too much. (Another reason for China's carefulness is the supply chain. SK is selling chips, materials, machineries to China).

In short, do not take SK's support for going nuclear too seriously. It will do so IF AND ONLY IF the US extended deterrence becomes weak. If not, SK will remain armed with the most sophisticated coventiional-weapons-only, to the teeth.

The ball is in the US court. The ball is in the Chinese court. (NK is a puppet of China, even though it starts going rogue these days)

What SK is doing and will do is to keep this nuclear latency level very, very high.

[nitinpatel]

Tbh every country with ability to build its nuclear reactors can, build nuclear weapons without much issues, south korea with such advance technological power house building nukes is no big deal,

[UrsusUrsa]

Of course the world is safer with less nukes but South Korea's only bordering neighbor is building them and has been threatening war for half a century and they're backed by the next 2 closest land bordering states which both also happen to have nuclear weapons. I can't really fault S. Korea for wanting their own.

[pawelzybulskij]

no one is going to sanction South Korea too much, and mostly will do business as usual and focusing on developing their own nukes maybe with help of South Korea.

[DennisTheInternationalMenace]

NGL, If the south did... Im curious to see how North Korea would spin this? They think its ok to have them but if the South does... Then it's a provocation.

[Hyper_Typhoon]

In fact, South Korea already has SLBMs(500km), IRBMs(5000km), and stealth fighters.(F-35, KF-21) So, if it just has nukes, it is done.

[carlcramer]

The necessity of having your own nuclear weapons is currently being tested in Ukraine. If we let Russia get away with nuclear blackmail over Ukraine, then many smaller nations like Poland, Germany, Ukraine, S Korea, Japan, and perhaps even Taiwan would feel that having their own nuclear weapons is an urgent need as the only defense against nuclear blackmail.

[lores]

I believe South Korea has already the tech and knowledge to build it. My guess is that they already have it, just complete at 90% and the last 10% to be completed if needed

[knpark]

When it comes to South Korean nukes, asking "why" instead of "if" or "when" would result in a much more productive assessment of the situation.

[joshuayang]

whether or not it would made it better is a question, but this would definitely make japan and taiwan to urge for some

[IK_MK]

This will literally bring up the biggest argument in UN history:

*_If South Korea can get nukes why can't I?_*

[andrewdunbar]

I've been saying for about two years that a bunch of countries will be working on nuclear weapons now.

[joundii]

You thought India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons was bad ? Behold !

[rand_handle]

Imagine making a video about the reasons why a country wants their own nukes as security guarantees despite having guarantees from allies without mentioning the only country that got security guarantees from allies in exchange for relinquishing the nukes that serves as the only example to date of what happens to those guarantees if they're attacked by a country that actually has nukes (allies get deterred, attacker does not).

[bababababababa]

Wouldn’t SK getting nuclear weapons completely invalidate the North’s primary advantage?

[Zeroksas]

Obviously they should develop nukes. We live in the world where you either are real country(have nukes) and can protect yourself or "partner"(more like vassal) of one of the countries with nukes. If ever war South Korea vs North Korea happens in the future and North uses nukes - do you really guys think that USA would use nukes againts North? They just say something "risk of starting WW3 is too high".

[ashvandal]

Yup. I’m on board. All the worst countries in the world to keep nuclear arms out of their hands already have them. So now I’m on board with all our allies having nukes of their own.

[mappingshaman]

There won't be sanctions. Sanctions are for countries opposed to the west, which south korea isn't.

[deadlyarturok]

you can't rely on treaties or allies unless they are really close...if your neighbors have them so should you. The reason some treaties of non proliferation like in South America works is because that spot is not so hot...if a country gets them and they start to be more active you bet others will want. If your bound by some treaty what if the other party decides not to help....