Why does the United States vehemently oppose South Korea's nuclear armament?
South Korea is the only signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, given that it faces repeated, concrete threats from North Korea. Yet, the United States says it will sanction South Korea if it moves forward wirh nuclear armament, which is supported by 75% of the population.
The United States' opposition brings into question the sincerity of its military alliance and the purpose of US troops stationed in South Korea, namely, that US troops are there to 'protect' Korea.
What are the political consequences of a nuclear South Korea? Do you agree with or oppose this proposal?
Because you homosexuals are cucks unlike the north who has full independence. China sanctioned the shit out of North Korea after they did an H bomb test meanwhile South Koreans are afraid of disrespecting their masters
Because youre still on the verge of unifying with nk.
>on the verge of unifying with nk
not even close
South Korea is the only signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that fulfills the withdrawal clause*
the united states is about to become irrelevant, if she is indeed the “whore of babylon” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2017&version=GNV
Because squids have serious mental disorder
Ironically, a Korea-Japan alliance is the only viable path forward for both countries, if Japan does not intend to get sucked into an unnecessary war against China.
You know what? Half of our ancestors are ancient southern han Chinese, even though you were taught in school Korean fantasy which squids made out from scratch. Just look at Taiwanese they know we are bros. You are MonKorean.
Mongolians don't share that much genetics with Koreans, however Koreans and Japanese are one family.
Most notably, your emperor and former PM Abe have admitted Korean heritage.
>your emperor admitted
Retard. He mentioned about emperor kanmu whose mother was 10 generation ancient Korean whose ancestors were yayoi Southern Chinese and moved from Japan to southern part of Korean peninsula.
Haha what a load of copium. And PM Abe? What about him?
>And PM Abe? What about him?
What are you referring to? Also he was an agent of CIA squid cult. What do you expect from the statement of unification church?
Yeah I know the ordeal about Moonies.
But I am referring to Abe's very public statement that he is ethnically Korean. In fact, all his family looks Korean.
Please stop Korea-hating. Not all Koreans hate Japan.
Aren't Japanese people basically the descendants of Korean horse lords(Yayoi) mixed with local Jomom culture alongside some Chinese settlers(if the Xu Fu + Mount Horai myth is to be believed)
>Yayoi
is ancient han Chinese. If you knew Japanese history written in ancient history book of Japan, you would know what Im saying. The propaganda squid WAS jap ancestors is American psyop to take over Japan with Squid gamers. And our society was completely taken over by squids already.
Cope.
Yayoi were Korean, Yayoi tombstones are found exclusively in Korea and nowhere in China.
It's also supported by numerous artifacts.
>brings into question the sincerity of its military alliance and the purpose of US troops stationed in South Korea
Then can you answer why the United States would oppose ROK's nuclear armament, when that is the only viable security guarantee against North Korea's arsenal?
because they don't want to bear responsibility for the ROK nukes. They also don't want to provoke norks unnecessarily
Anon, in just a few years, South Korea will have a progressive leader once again, who is almost certain to frustrate US policy objectives. To be brutally honest, if you were in their shoes, would you want you to have nukes?
How can you read the letters in that pic? Can you read Korean?
My concern is for ROK's fundamental security and the well-being of my people.
Is the United States willing to trade New York for Seoul?
You are quite right that your security problems are ultimately yours and yours alone. But it doesn’t help that most South Korean governments have had a policy of losing friends and alienating people. You have basically spent the last three decades at this point almost deliberately aggravating Americans from the very top (stabbing and insulting ambassadors, assaulting soldiers, making English teachers’ and businessmens’ lives miserable) and then you go complaining to them about your insecurities.
I don’t know what to tell you dude besides “Good luck.”
The ambassador incident was deeply regrettable, it was denounced by everyone. I know how ROK is viewed by the West - like you say, our security problem is ours alone in the end and we're going to need all the good luck. Thanks.
I guarantee you that it doesn’t escape the notice of US officials that ordinary South Koreans get far more aggravated by even rumours that an American or Japanese disrespected them a little compared to when a fellow South Korean or a North Korean does the same. Even taking into account a certain understandable level of Korean ethnocentrism, you can’t expect them not to be at least a little bitter about it.
A US soldier commits a murder decades ago or even just hits someone in a completely accidental traffic accident, and it’s basically a blood libel thing they will be guilty of forever. North Koreans deliberately murder refugees or even sometimes South Korean civilians or even officials and it’s time to brush it under the carpet.
I’m sure US officials also have noticed how forgiving public opinion tends to be towards progressive governments and leaders when they commit the same or worse misdeeds than their opponents.
Kim Dae-Jung was corrupt as shit but is still a virtual saint even today. LMB and PGH basically did nothing wrong but their names are dirt.
Essentially Koreans are a nightmare to deal with and whose fault is that?
From the pics you're posting and what you're saying, I'm going to guess you're either someone in media or government that has covered Korea in the past.
Then you should know that all the evils you speak of originated from President Park's untimely death, and the US's overt protection of Kim Dae-Jung. Your grievances are reasonable, and I can say that they are the result of decades-long campaign by the NK-friendly far left.
However, that does not address the main question at hand, which is the existential threat ROK faces.
If the US is indeed 'protecting' ROK, on what grounds does it threaten ROK when it seeks out the only viable protection against NK?
It's almost as if the US army weren't stationed in ROK in order to 'protect'
AFAIK, South Korea is a signatory to the nuclear NPT. South Korea has the option of pulling out, but they may face retaliation not necessarily from the United States, but likely from China.
Also. Japan would balk at South Korea becoming a nuclear state while they do not have them, and if Japan becomes a nuclear armed state this would be heavily destabilising for the region.
Why not instead just try to reinforce your alliance with the United States and build cooperation with Japan? I’m not surprised many South Koreans are worried about the durability of both, every progressive government in South Korea seems determined to upset US and Japanese officials as if it was their prime objective. To the extent that many start to wonder which side South Korea is on.
The US has made it clear via many different channels that it would suffocate South Korean economy should it proceed with nuclear armament.
Is the United States willing to trade New York for Seoul?
I understand these concerns, but North Korean nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to ROK and her people.
If North Korea were to nuke ROK's major cities and raze it to the ground, will the United States promise of a 'nuclear umbrella' deployed? Are South Koreans supposed to believe what the US says?
North Korea's aim is reunification - they'd never nuke your cities
That is not what ROK's top security officials think, nor is that what the people think.
Regardless, that is not a viable defense strategy against North Korean nukes.
Good take, briton. Can any US posters refute this?
That's a very questionable take, I wonder what the response of your citizens and senators is going to be.
What if it's not a question of New York only, but all major cities in the United States including DC and SF? What do you say then?
>Squid game land
I am very well aware. Which brings ME AGAIN to the question, is the US willing to trade New York for Seoul? The entire Western Hemisphere for Seoul?
>security officials
understandable
>people
who would've thought 70 years of fearmongering can do that
Both points are irrelevant regarding nork aims. It's like saying Russia will nuke Ukraine or India will nuke Pakistan - it doesn't really work that way despite what people who earn their money from arms deals say
The idea that NK will not nuke ROK is simply not true. And that assertion cannot serve as a security guarantee from NK's nuclear arsenal.
nobody will benefit from you having nuclear weapons. Your security guarantee is "trust me bro, I'll help you" from the US occupier
>The idea that NK will not nuke ROK is simply not true
They're building an ICBM stockpile to reach the US, their main target isnt SK anymore. Their main target was never SK to begin with, they've always showcased the US as the big bad villain in their posters and videos.
They have a defensive policy, which is only use nukes if you're attacked or there's enough evidence to show you're about to be attacked. SK shouldnt worry about NK, it should worry more about the US.
>all major cities in the United States including DC and SF? What do you say then?
absolutely and unequivocally. the world is on the precipice of the last war humanity will ever fight. if i give up all my cities now, my nation is optimally positioned to recover faster than nations which do not. ive got sufficiently dispersed domestic military forces and local agricultural and energy production to rebuild an industrialized society from the ground up within half a generation, and possibly maintaining law and order completely, resettling refugees into inland camps. no US ally is in the same position as me. we can take all the hits, in fact dont shoot them shoot me. if the war is nuclear, it is far far easier to destroy the regimes running our enemy nations. to the US cities are a liability, to opfor, cities are the regime. build your nation into the US if you want to survive ww3. get out of the cities. put your worst people in the cities with massive social spending subsidies, and pray someone sets us up the a bomb.
The truth is that public opinion in foreign countries is pretty vague when it comes to Korean issues. To most people you’re just Squid Game land.
As far as the attitude of US officials though you only have yourselves to blame. Why should others care for your defence any more, and be more protective of you than you are yourselves?
Why not just do shit in secret? Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. I doubt DPRK went, hat in hand, to China and requested their permission for nuclear arms development.
ROK and Japan are essentially defacto nuclear states... you both have everything required to develop a nuclear weapon in a trivial amount of time-- really the best place to be because it saves you on cost and international bureaucratic red tape.
It has been tried.
S. Korea had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons until the US found out and put a stop to around 1974
Because NK can easily steal your tech. You are easily infiltrated. Also you don’t need them. NK would be turned to glass if they bombed Seoul. We like SK, we would go to war over SK, which we have already shown you we will.
The fundamental question here is, is the United States willing to trade New York for Seoul? Yes or no?
They dont even care about South Korea anymore, they're aiming straight for the US mainland. They're focusing on building ICBMs and from their latest parade they showcased 11 Hwasongs able to reach anywhere in the US.
This must terrify you, private Lopez.
They certainly care for South Korea, their main national policy has been the destruction of ROK. They shoot missiles every once in awhile, and if they tweaked a few degrees and attached nuclear warheads, that's very bad news.
>their main national policy has been the destruction of ROK
No it hasnt, they see you as a victim and puppet of the United States. Their aim is to defeat the US and reunify Korea. How can you reunify Korea if you nuke it?
I won't argue with you, but that is not what North Korea intends, and not what ROK's security apparatus thinks.
>ROK's security apparatus thinks
They only think as far as the US allows them to think.
>North Korea intends
The main target in every poster and video in the DPRK is the United States. They see South Korea as a brother and one who has been brainwashed by the US to hate the North. Most of their rhetoric is aimed toward the US. They define SK as a puppet whenever its mentioned in the news.
the US doesnt give a fuck about Seoul and will absolutely give up New York. we wouldnt hesitate to let NY be annihilated if it helped win ww3. a better question is would the US blow up NYC itself to start ww3 framing its enemies--also probably.
if you want to have a nuclear war, build nuclear weapons. its that simple. US foreign policy is highly calculated and effective strategy for winning ww3 and has been since 1950. breakout capability is what you get and deserve.
American Airmen in SK actually don't have a plan if stuff happens. They're just told to bunker down until calvary arrives.
I am pro North Korea having a nukes
I am pro Iran having nukes
I am pro Russia having nukes
Let’s even the playing field and make these israelite sit the fuck down for once.
The US knows is any of its allies develops a nuclear bomb, all of China, Iran, and Russia's allies will develop nuclear bombs. This will have two main effects, both weaken the US geopolitically and diplomatically: 1) more countries will enter the China-Iran-Russia axis of influence, seeking to bolster national defense priorities by receiving nuclear weapon technology transfers and geopolitical cover; 2) more counties will leave the US-EU-Commonwealth-SK-Japan axis, as a result of massive changes in balance of power in a potential regional conflict. Underneath the hood of world war, it is evident that the United States and its axis have an overwhelming advantage in Space, Naval, and Air military power--one notable absence is Nuclear forces--if the US axis finds itself in at a new, sudden, and growing nuclear capability gap within the extended Russia-Iran-China axis, the geopolitical defense promises the US axis has made will become untenable. This is because nuclear weapons easily destroy air, naval, and space forces with extreme economic efficiency; the resulting world war 3 scenario post-nuclear proliferation is a land war that looks like ww1 (or the Crimea-Russia war) augmented by nuclear weaponry used at sea, in the air, and in space (and not over land or population centers) and is a type of world war 3 that the US will easily lose. In this way, the US works tirelessly to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation which nations like Japan, Iran, and South Korea maintain a 'breakout' nuclear weapon capacity around the clock (basically a pile of parts, scientists, labs, and nuclear material ready to build nuclear bomb within hours or days).
Because nations being able to defend themselves instead of having to rely on the US weakens US international hegemony.
Sure, ROK having its own nuclear arsenal might not seem that bad. But what next?
Denying US presence on the Korean Peninsula?
Rejecting IMF or World Bank loans?
Moving away from central banking?
Ceasing trade in the USD?
Issuing a social credit monetary system?
>tl;dr South Korea having nukes is anti-Semitic
The fuck are you on about with nukes?
South Korea is currently in a nose-dive with a declining population and the spread of Western degeneracy (drugs, feminism, sexual liberation, homosexualry).
Nuclear armament won't save South Korea.
The Northern fuckwits don't have to do shit, they just have to wait out South Korea.
This is a good take, but you could say this about any Western country too.
Why bother with national security? All populations are dying off.
Korea has attempted in the past under President Park. There is a popular tale -amongst historians that he was assassinated by the US for proceeding with nuclear armament.
I'm not saying South Korea should compromise on national defense, but rather it should get its priorities straight.
The country has limited resources and TIME, and nuclear armament is a heavy undertaking.
Besides, what good is a nuclear weapon when more and more Korean men are becoming disillusioned with their own country?
Focusing on improving the living condition and boosting the moral and unity among the population is going to do a lot more to strengthen national security than pursuing a nuclear program.
Given the current political situation and problems with corruption, even if it were to pursue a nuclear program, someone is going to leak, misappropriate funds as it has become a fashionable thing to do for people in the government in Korea, and the program won't withstand the external political pressure from neighboring countries as well as the US.
Nuclear armament is not a heavy undertaking, the technical aspects are well within reach.
In fact, I would argue that a lot of the disillusionment and nihilism faced by Korean society is the result of Western influence. And due to US pressure, Korea does not really have a say in how its society and culture is oriented.
Even now, when the government even mentions banning 'Ministry of Women' the US will exert pressure not to.
When homosexuals parade in our streets against the wishes of the majority of the population, the US ambassador will make a speech in support of these groups.
I meant heavy undertaking in a geopolitical context.
Any country with a working nuclear reactor would probably be able to develop a nuclear weapon as long as they could source the raw the materials, but that is the problem.
It will have to find a way to secure the raw materials, but there will be all kinds of political pressure and interference from the adjacent countries as well as from the US at every step of the weapons development.
If South Korea is currently giving into the US's influence on culture and internal politics, does it even have enough political capital with its own population as well as internationally to be able to force its way to completion of the weapons program? It will have to convince and build trust with a lot of people - in domestic and international politics, and withstand all kinds of s accusations and suspicions. Such heavy geopolitical undertaking will likely draw focus away from the current problems that the Korean society is facing, and putting off such pressing issues might become much harder to deal with later, and that is what I am afraid of for South Korea.
Good take, it is true that the political leadership is mundane and bland at best.
But I do think that this US opposition and general condescension reveals a lot of valuable information about the so-called 'military alliance' that even the staunchest supporters cannot ignore.
From what I observed, the US is more interested in maintaining the status quo in the Korean peninsula more than anything, and if that means it has to appease to North Korea's aggression time to time with aid and/or dialing down of the sanctions, they'd rather do that than to help South Korea build its defense capability to suppress or prevent North Korea's aggression.
That approach hasn't changed across different US Presidents over the last 30 years, and there hasn't been any serious talks of change of attitude either, which tells me the US wants to keep that way indefinitely...
So would you say that the US is an 'ally' of Korea?
Why do you think US troops are stationed in Korea?
These recent developments get many people thinking... aka the theories about the United States provoking the Korean War and dividing the Korean peninsula which was once derided as a communist lie, is now gaining newfound credibility.
I figure the Korean peninsula is just too strategically valuable for the US to give up, as it gives them a backdoor access to China and Russia.
China and Russia probably know how strategically valuable the peninsula is to the US too and they also know USFKOR is going to find a way to stay even after North Korea collapses, which is why the two countries are keeping North Korea on an indefinite life support to make sure the US forces stay as far away from their borders.
It will also make things a lot tougher for the US if the North collapses too, because it will have to invent some bullshit reason to stay in Korea and China and Russia are going to want them out. It makes sense that the US is comfortable keeping things the way it is without disturbing the balance so they too avoid creating more work for themselves.
Thanks for the honest take.
This seems like the most plausible theory given all things considered.
And to hear it from an Aussie is nice, since you are untainted by Korean politics.
The US has earned many hostile enemies by threatening ROK with economic suffocation in the event of nuclear armament. Even ordinary citizens are questioning the sincerity of the so-called military alliance.
I'm probably not the only one who figured out the real reason why the US has had troops stationed in Korea in past decades.
The US really has no business in East Asia, it needs to GTFO.
If anything, the vast majority of US administrations have had to twist Seoul's arm to implement any sanctions on North Korea. In fact, Washington doing so has been a major grievance on the part of successive progressive South Korean administrations.
Trump was a major exception in this regard.
From what I observed recently, it seems like the US administrations have twisted Seoul's arm enough times to create some sort of a Pavlov's dog like response. Seoul seem less interested in expressing their grievance towards Washington in such situation, and more interested in trying exploit the situation for political gain and extracting some kind of reward from Washington for going along with their North Korea policy.
In some ways its pathetic to see the Korean politicians lose their backbone they once had.
>politicians lose their backbone
This is what years of Western style democracy does to a country.
Park Chung-Hee, who was murdered by the Americans for developing nuclear weapons, was the last strong leader that had a vision and an iron will.
>Park Chung-Hee
you mean Takagi Masao (高木正雄)
I mean Park Chung-Hee, who fought US bullshit and kikery his entire reign and was murdered by the US government in the end.
The majority of Korean administrations resist what is often perceived as a too punitive North Korea policy on the part of most US administrations.
Even conservative South Korean governments are under pressure not to be seen to be going along with US North Korea policy too closely, for fear of being seen as selling out or putting ties with the US ahead of North-South reconciliation or whatever.
China has to keep the status quo. One of their dumbest move was to actually help them acquire and build the nuke. Imagine, its like having Mexico with a nuke. Would not make any sense and more of a problem than a solution. Convinced China is not ready for the world stage if the NK situation continues.
For instance, Australia has all the raw materials to develop nuclear weapons as well as the land to test them, and had we had South Korea's technology and the expertise on nuclear engineering, I'm sure Australia will be able to just flip the bird to any foreign political pressure and carry on with the program to completion.
On the other hand, South Korea lacks the raw materials, and it is certainly going to raise suspicion if it starts to enrich Uranium it imported to for nuclear reactors.
If South Korea loses its suppliers of fissile materials for breaking the 'fair use' agreement, it might end up having trouble operating factories that run on cheap nuclear energy.
The country has to have enough political capital with the countries that can supply the materials to be able to balance the risk, and it is going to take a lot of effort to pull it off, so much so that it might cost the greatly nation in other ways (trade, opportunity, etc)
Again, a hefty undertaking...
Look at what happened to Gaddafi after willingly getting rid of his WMDs. If the ROK got nukes, you would have no Gods or Kings, only man.
When you have enough nukes, your adversaries will no longer be able to push you around like in a conventional war, lest the war goes hot and the world descends into Nuclear Armageddon.
The north needs to hurry up and conquer you sissy homosexuals
china opposes it. And china has us by the balls...
I don't know if you noticed, but nobody realy proliferates nukes nowday, except maube Iran and they get sanctioned for trying
nuclear powers oppose anyone else getting the nuke
If you wanted nukes, you shouldn't have signed the non-proliferation treaty.
Non-proliferation itself is a noble goal, and back then it also had the added intention of discouraging North Korea from going nuclear.
As of today, South Korea is the only country that amply fulfills the withdrawal clause in the treaty.
You're missing the point, that treaty guarantees that countries signing without already having nuclear capability is not allowed to ever have them. We're signatories, do you think we have nukes or are ever allowed to pursue them?
Except that the treaty has a withdrawal clause, which the situation in Korea satisfies. So Korea may withdraw at any point.
Actually, it would be more than enough, that is the point of nuclear weapons. In fact, Korea wouldn't need the US at all with nuclear weapons, they can pack the fuck up and go home.
nukes are not magical indestructible weapons, they can be neutralized if there is enough dominance, strategic balance exists
it's the whole reason the cuban missile crisis was such a big deal and why Putin going along with the american missile silos in romania project was such a blunder
The things is countries break treaties or just outright ignore them when there is enough incentives to do so or to pursue important national interests.
Norway isn't in a situation to have to entertain the idea of nuclear armament, but who knows? Maybe in the future its geopolitical situation with the neighboring countries makes it necessary to consider the idea?
If it is really that important for nations to pretend to follow the treaties it agreed to, they can always try to re-negotiate, or accuse an adversary nation of breaking the treaty to claim that it is no longer valid.
We border Russia, Russia has upgraded us to a confirmed nuclear target after Obama pushed 300 odd Marines on us.
We could sure use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, but will never be allowed to.
it wouldn't be enough to deter NK + China in a vacuum, they would still need the US so they shouldn't bother
doesn't vehemently oppose, pretty much its baked in to our defense agreement. We will use nukes our enemies if exchange for Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, whoever in the area abstaining from arming themselves with nukes. This also factors into preventing nuclear proliferation.
The condescending statements coming out of the US does indicate vehement opposition.
Furthermore, seeing what happened with Ukraine, no one believes that the US will honor that arrangement.
No sane country will risk their entire population to nuclear annihilation.
this is all you need to know. US has all the cards. No country is going to risk annihilation when their leaders have all their assets tied in the Caymens. These are just globalists playing war games, they are more scared of losing money then men and material. A nuclear exchange would be absolutely devastating to these regimes.
and what condescending statements are you talking about?
we have a fucking THAAD in and around your area. We don't do that because we think you lesser.
It is imperative for Korea to go nuclear, and then kick US presence off Korean soil.
The US has no business in Asia.
Now you are just trolling. But you know, don't you worry. If one day North Korea capitulates and we have a Germany moment. IF you are still around you can vote to see if you can keep these nukes. But alot of people won't like it. China for one. Japan another.
>What are the political consequences of a nuclear South Korea?
End of vassal status and start of independance. Huge threat to China and Japan as Beijing and Tokyo would be in range of nuke carrying missiles.
That would lead to constant problems and even trade embargos and sea blockades to suffocate you until you give up.
Yugoslavia was development nuclear reactors and wanted to make nukes, but being close to Rome, Vienna, Berlin, it was deemed too dangerous.
Without nukes Yugoslavia succumbed and exploded catastrophically.
shut up your are the bitch of the west. You are our bitch now. You do as we say and you obey. did you understand ping pong chinchang?
I pray every day for nuclear war.
I want to see this world burn and billions die.