South Korean Experts Debate Nuclear Armament Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty

As Pyongyang flexes its atomic muscles, Seoul faces growing calls to take its own nuclear path, triggering a heated debate on security and global fallout.

Members from think tanks, academia, and legislature gather at Seoul's National Assembly for a seminar hosted by the Seoul Defense Forum titled “South Korea’s Response to North Korean Nuclear Crisis" in South Korea on March 20, 2025. Han Ki Min/ The Epoch Times

News Analysis

SEOUL—Some South Korean experts are revisiting the question of whether the country should develop its own nuclear weapons amid heightened geopolitical uncertainties. For decades, the country has lived under Washington’s promise of protection in exchange for nonproliferation.

At an international defense forum hosted by the South Korean Ministry of National Defense at the National Assembly in Seoul on March 20, these experts highlighted the importance of achieving self-sufficiency in defense.

Cheong Seong-chang, director of the Center for Korean Peninsula Strategy at the Sejong Institute, warned about the dire consequences of failing to do so.

“A 250-kiloton hydrogen bomb dropped on Seoul would kill around 780,000 people and injure 2.77 million—over a third of the city’s population,” he said.

He also warned of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could fry power grids and electronics across Seoul and beyond, a threat he said can’t be ignored after the 1950 Korean War, when many dismissed the idea of a North Korean attack, only to see it happen.

Over the years, South Koreans have increasingly wanted their own atomic weapons. The share of public support rose from 54 percent in 2019 to 71 percent three years later, according to The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Since then, other surveys by the Chey Institute for Advanced Studies, a Seoul-based think tank, have identified similar public opinions.

The “strategic elites” in the country hold a different view, according to Victor Cha, who leads the Korean program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His report last year showed that two-thirds of the influential members in Seoul’s policy-making circle were against the country taking a nuclear path.

Now, the minority is turning up the volume.

The forum, attended by more than 100 members from think tanks, academia, and legislature, was organized by the Seoul Defense Forum (SDF).

Threat From North Korea

Chey Seung-woo, head of SDF’s North Korea Nuclear Policy Center, tracked North Korea’s changing playbook. Pyongyang’s 2013 Nuclear State Law was centered on deterrence, but its 2022 Nuclear Forces Law opened the door to preemptive strikes, he said.

He noted that since the 2019 Hanoi Summit with the United States collapsed without a denuclearization deal, North Korea has significantly ramped up short- and medium-range missile tests—80 percent of its launches have taken place after Hanoi—likely targeting U.S. bases in South Korea, Japan, and Guam.

Chey also tied North Korea’s recent troop deployment to the Russia–Ukraine war to a possible bid to bolster its position with Russia’s nuclear backing.

The Sejong Institute’s Cheong agrees with Chey’s concerns and proposed a phased plan: Share U.S. nuclear weapons first, then develop the capability to build them while staying in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and, if push comes to shove, exit the NPT for a basic deterrent.

But not everyone agrees.

Ham Hyeong-pil, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, pointed out the practical hurdles: North Korea has more than 20 nuclear facilities, while South Korea has just two. The costs and risks, he warned, could outweigh the benefits.

Critics of nuclear proliferation also warned of a “nuclear domino effect,” where South Korea’s move could unravel the NPT and trigger an arms race across Asia.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a U.S. federal agency focusing on nuclear weapons science and technology, acknowledged Chey’s concerns in a 2023 report but said concerns about preemptive strikes by Pyongyang were “overstated” because North Korea would not fire its nuclear weapon unless it is under a desperate circumstance and miscalculates Washington’s defense promise.

A Debate Shaped by Crisis, Uncertainty

The discussion took place amid political tension. President Yoon Suk Yeol—a pro-United States, Japan-friendly leader who has distanced the country from China and North Korea—faces impeachment after declaring martial law in December 2024. The move followed clashes with an opposition-led National Assembly and disputes over the National Election Commission.

Adding fuel to the fire, the U.S. Department of Energy under the Biden administration designated South Korea a “sensitive country” in January, a classification that goes into effect on April 15. The department has not indicated whether the Trump administration might reverse this decision.

This designation puts South Korea alongside higher-risk nations such as China, North Korea, and Russia, signaling U.S. worries about nuclear proliferation amid Yoon’s predicament and whispers of Seoul’s nuclear ambitions.

Being on the list means the United States requires extra scrutiny on energy partnerships with the country over national security, nuclear proliferation, or regional instability concerns.

Broader geopolitical shifts also play a part. Song Seung-jong, a professor at Daejeon University’s Department of Military Studies, called the United States’ nonproliferation policy “outdated,” saying that Washington’s trillion-dollar investment in an “Iron Dome” missile defense system is evidence that the United States is focusing on its own security needs over those of its allies.

He also noted China’s nuclear buildup—230 new missile sites in the Gobi Desert since 2019—locking the United States, Russia, and China in a three-way standoff. Song said that selective proliferation could strengthen U.S.–South Korea ties and counter China, though the risk of global backlash looms large.

However, Washington will not endorse Seoul taking its own nuclear path, according to Alexander Liao, a global affairs expert and contributor to The Epoch Times. He said that nonproliferation is at the core of the U.S. global strategy.

In his view, the United States’ official stance remains committed to providing nuclear protection to South Korea while opposing its nuclear armament, as reaffirmed in the 2023 Washington Declaration—a position that has not changed. Meanwhile, Seoul continues to rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and pledges not to pursue its own nuclear weapons.

The increasing public support in South Korea to develop its own atomic weapons is “a test to the role the U.S. plays in global geopolitics,” Liao said.

“When America’s role changes, no one feels safe,” he told The Epoch Times, referring to recent efforts by the United States to encourage European allies to increase their own defense spending.

He said that if South Korea embarks on a nuclear path, Japan and Taiwan—both capable—might swiftly follow suit.

South Korea isn’t alone in this rethink. Some in Ukraine question the decision to give up the country’s Soviet-era nuclear arsenal three decades ago, and Poland is considering hosting NATO atomic weapons to deter Moscow’s aggression.