There will be no assertion of nuclear hegemony over South Korea if the US allowed South Korea to have its own nuclear arsenal, just like it did with the UK.
Now the big question is, is the US willing to do that?
Considering a nuke armed South Korea might give the US an opportunity to pull out the USFK, will a US President be willing to make that decision?
setnaffa
4 years ago
Nuclear non-proliferation has a point. Perhaps look that up…
There are people who, if they have a weapon, feel compelled to find a reason to use it. Can you say Rhee Syngman would have held back from using nukes on Pyongyang in 1949-50? Can you guarantee a lesser man will never hold the Blue House? (There have been three already, if one counts the 2nd and 3rd Generals.)
That was more of a rhetorical question, but anyways.
Although setnaffa is calling for nuclear nonprofileration and states that S.Korea having nukes will amount to “Koreans killing each other”, I can’t help but notice that the country that he is a citizen of has a) enabled the UK to build up its first nuclear deterrent and b) looked the other way when Israel, Pakistan, and India gained nuclear weapons.
And suffice to say, if hotter heads prevailed in Islamabad and New Delhi( the heads now aren’t that cool either) we would have a huge disaster in our hands to say the least.
Also, during the Cold War, the US placed US controlled nukes in the hands of its Nato allies and told them to drop them on advancing Soviet armies if the US gave the OK.
Plus despite all the talk of safeguards in the US nuclear arsenal, it takes the whim of one man or woman to launch those and the only thing that can stop it is an officer who decides it is better to risk court martial then to carry out the orders of a President.
Not much of a moral high ground for a nation who wants the DPRK to give up its nukes.
There will be no assertion of nuclear hegemony over South Korea if the US allowed South Korea to have its own nuclear arsenal, just like it did with the UK.
Now the big question is, is the US willing to do that?
Considering a nuke armed South Korea might give the US an opportunity to pull out the USFK, will a US President be willing to make that decision?
Nuclear non-proliferation has a point. Perhaps look that up…
There are people who, if they have a weapon, feel compelled to find a reason to use it. Can you say Rhee Syngman would have held back from using nukes on Pyongyang in 1949-50? Can you guarantee a lesser man will never hold the Blue House? (There have been three already, if one counts the 2nd and 3rd Generals.)
Don’t advocate for the death of more Koreans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
That was more of a rhetorical question, but anyways.
Although setnaffa is calling for nuclear nonprofileration and states that S.Korea having nukes will amount to “Koreans killing each other”, I can’t help but notice that the country that he is a citizen of has a) enabled the UK to build up its first nuclear deterrent and b) looked the other way when Israel, Pakistan, and India gained nuclear weapons.
And suffice to say, if hotter heads prevailed in Islamabad and New Delhi( the heads now aren’t that cool either) we would have a huge disaster in our hands to say the least.
Also, during the Cold War, the US placed US controlled nukes in the hands of its Nato allies and told them to drop them on advancing Soviet armies if the US gave the OK.
Plus despite all the talk of safeguards in the US nuclear arsenal, it takes the whim of one man or woman to launch those and the only thing that can stop it is an officer who decides it is better to risk court martial then to carry out the orders of a President.
Not much of a moral high ground for a nation who wants the DPRK to give up its nukes.
Maybe a different approach is called for?