Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Restore US nukes to South Korea
Asia Times ^ | 02.24.05 | John Parker

Posted on 02/23/2005 9:13:43 PM PST by Dr. Marten

Restore US nukes to South Korea
By John Parker

BANGKOK - It's the counter strategy that dares not speak its name: return US tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea.

North Korea's announcement on February 10 that it had nuclear weapons only surprised those who were not paying attention. After all, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has a history of nuclear research dating to the 1950s, and is believed to have initiated nuclear weapons development programs in the late 1970s. [1]

When the North pulled out of the 1994 Agreed Framework agreement in 2002 and ejected United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency observers from its Yongbyon nuclear complex, the regime gained unimpeded access to enough plutonium to make at least a handful of implosion warheads, and the manufacture of the actual devices has been only a matter of time.

Much of the commentary on the North Korean announcement, hypnotized by anti-American schadenfreude, has focused on the difficulties that a nuclear North Korea poses for American policymakers. What all these writers have missed is the availability of an obvious counterstrategy to a nuclear DPRK. While this strategy would admittedly be very controversial, especially in the current "if a tree falls in the forest, it's [US President] George W Bush's fault" climate, it has many advantages, including:



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: asia; china; korea; northeastasia; northkorea; southkorea; us

1 posted on 02/23/2005 9:13:43 PM PST by Dr. Marten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

Why bother? The fly-in time from Okinawa can't be more than a few hours at most.


2 posted on 02/23/2005 9:20:11 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

About 4 minutes by submarine launch ;)


3 posted on 02/23/2005 9:58:50 PM PST by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

The US can strike with Nucs from the sea, there is no need to have them physically in S. Korea.

We just need to let Kimmy boy know that we will use them if he attacks.


4 posted on 02/23/2005 10:10:29 PM PST by sd-joe ("if a tree falls in the forest, it's George W Bush's fault")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

Any announcement would be symbolic only....the nukes are already there...under the surface, 12+ miles offshore.


5 posted on 02/23/2005 10:16:56 PM PST by HardStarboard (PASS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

The gentleman has the right idea, and for all the right reasons. The biggest problem would be getting the ROKs to buy into it, but if we press hard enough it will happen. The symbolism of the tactical nukes alone will be enough to make Jong Il think twice, and the Chinese will have to think about the consequences to them (and the Russkis, for that matter) if people get promiscuous with nukes on the Peninsula. All the Japanese had to do was to say that they were considering reestablishing diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and the Chicoms were back pressuring the NKs to get serious about disarmament talks.


6 posted on 02/23/2005 10:19:35 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
We just need to let Kimmy boy know that we will use them if he attacks.

He should have already known this. The only logical reason for him to acquire and admit he has nukes is self-preservation. We now know that a conventional invasion from the South will be countered with the North's nukes. Thats fine since there was no short term plans to invade from the south. The main problem now is to counter any first strike capability the North has or can obtain. For example - There simply is no way we can allow him to acquire the ability to obliterate Japan, South Korea and Taiwan with a nuke first strike. This is probably the best place on earth to have an SDI program in place. In the short term the potential affects a working SDI system has, should make the nuclear first strike option unpalatible to the north. I dont agree that placing nukes on South Korean soil is the best option. It will give the internal dissenters vast amounts of ammunition to start an anti-US revolt. That would be a very bad situation. The North Koreans invading at the request of a revolting populace which has taken control of South Koreas land based nukes. It would be better to sell the South Koreans Nuclear Subs or sign a pact/treaty that states the US will defend the South with US sub based nukes. Combining Nuclear Subs with an SDI program is about the best way to go at this point. Of course the quickest and less expensive way to go would be for the US/South Korea to determine that a first strike on North Korea is warranted. At some point the possibility of losing Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will have to be weighed against the possibility of losing North Korea.

7 posted on 02/24/2005 1:25:54 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe

"The US can strike with Nucs from the sea, there is no need to have them physically in S. Korea.

We just need to let Kimmy boy know that we will use them if he attacks."

It is the symbolism of it that matters. In theory we can launch from off the California coast and vaporize NK before they even knew what hit them. Having them in Korea reaffirms the alliance and let's China know we mean business.

To double the affect, we put the nukes in Taiwan. That would really tweak the Chines noses.


8 posted on 02/24/2005 4:12:42 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (60 votes and the world changes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz; justa-hairyape

>> To double the affect, we put the nukes in Taiwan. That would really tweak the Chines noses. <<

I think that putting nukes in places that could conceivably be hit before launch is just stupid. That is why the submarine force is such an incredibly effective force.


9 posted on 02/24/2005 5:52:17 AM PST by sd-joe ("if a tree falls in the forest, it's George W Bush's fault")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

Nice try, but having to store, maintain, and guard tac nukes on some mainland ROK/US base is so....yesterday.

Never fear, if we need them they will be readily available.


10 posted on 02/24/2005 8:24:41 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson