Should the US Arm South Korea with Nuclear Weapons?

Blog Post
The South Koreans government has petitioned the US Government for decades to provide it with nuclear weapons to protect it from North Korea. Those pleas have always been rejected and the US assured their friend and ally, South Korea, that the American nuclear arsenal stood ready to assist. There were US presidents who could be trusted to act, but the North Koreans don’t seem to be much impressed with Obama. No, nobody else seems to be either.
In order to allow South Korea the freedom to act in their own defense so that the US President doesn’t have to do that — and can disavow whatever they do, maybe it’s time for us to provide them with two or three dozen tactical nuclear weapons and cruise missile (and/or other) delivery systems? What about it, Barack?

9 thoughts on “Should the US Arm South Korea with Nuclear Weapons?

  1. Trestin thinks we should not arm the South Koreans. I don't know. But he was just there and has ideas.

  2. One reminder here. We have 30,000+ troops in Korea. One bomb. that's all it takes

    I wrote the following well over a year ago. In the full post, I made the argument that this President showing the weakness that he is now known for would in fact aid and abet this tin horn dictator in N.Korea. Now, the madman is taking his shots as I feared and the Moron in Chief has the utter gall to proclaim this isn't a crisis or something to that effect. And we should not be the least bit surprised that China, perceiving the weakness on our part would demand we stand down.

    "WE CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH MADMEN! Chamberlain Jr. has got to get that through his fat head! While we fiddle/faddle, Korea lies to our faces while working at getting what they want! One other thing here. The loonies on the left seem to think the Koreans, being the honorable people that they are ,would never do anything stupid! Wrong!! As is evidenced buy their latest action, the North Koreans are willing to risk destruction well knowing the weak sister leaders of the world will cave in as always. And in the eyes of the morons in power here, they can't deliver a payload! WRONG! They have a short range missile that can deliver a small warhead. And lest anyone forget, we have 35,000 troops around the border there. One bomb. That's all it takes! But we'll trust the Anti-American UN and a madman?! Good Grief!

  3. There was a time — some time ago, when I interacted with the ROK Navy's Chief of Staff. His big question of me (a low-life mid-grade US Naval Officer) was when the US would give South Korea the bomb. I never answered but the 'answer' was — NEVER. They were and still may be more likely to use it on Japan than on North Korea.

    So my question (should the US give the ROKs nukes) was somewhat rhetorical within my sphere of experience. The real question before us, as the rest of you have said, lays with the Obama Administration's ability to navigate between the rocks and shoals now that it's laid itself before the nations as being weak, incompetent, somewhat corrupt (Chicago Style) and indecisive.

  4. Joetote – Are the 30,000 US troops in the ROK to keep the North from going South or to keep the South from going North?

    In my experience, South Korea would make short work of North Korea. I don't know what impact the North's nuclear weapons would play. I expect that they'd be revenge weapons rather than battlefield weapons. Nuclear weapons of the sort they have are difficult to use in the MOUNTAINOUS north, where the war would be fought.

    And once the North let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, the US could flatten Dear Leader and son — if Obama had the stones to do that and I question that his resolve is sufficient.

  5. LA – Yeah, it would be nice. Remember Ronald Reagan? Remember Harry Truman? Remember Dwight Eisenhower?

  6. Ronald Reagan I do remember; quite well in fact and with considerable and ever increasing fondness as I continue to observe the bad shantytown vaudeville act that the Obamaphate has become.

    Truman and Eisenhower: only through the history books, although I born in the latter half of Ike's 8 years in office.

  7. L.L.

    While I would fully agree that our troops are there to keep the North from invading the South and that is all well and good. And I'm not quite sure S. Korea having nuclear weapons would help. Now if our troops had those weapons at hand without interference from the south, that would be a different cat.

    My point was the fact that we know they have a missile that can in fact deliver a payload to where our troops are. As we are in fact dealing with madmen, would nuclear weapons in the south deter them? I cannot honestly answer that question. I do however feel there is a chance they might think twice before going to far if they are assured of their own annihilation, something I do not say lightly. sometimes strength is in fact the only way to reason with madmen.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top