Seoul, South Korea — Less than two years after South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol pledged his country would not seek nuclear weapons, his newly appointed defense minister is openly envisioning scenarios in which South Korea might reconsider that stance.
The comments by Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who took office on Friday, are the latest evidence that the once-taboo idea of nuclear armament has gone mainstream in Seoul, amid growing concerns about North Korea's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal and the long-term reliability of U.S. protection.
As an academic and retired military officer, Kim has long argued that South Korea may need nuclear weapons in some form to counter North Korea. In recently unearthed footage from a 2020 seminar, Kim warned South Korea has “no survival or future” without such a deterrent.
During his confirmation process last week, Kim stood by those comments, saying “all options” should remain open if the U.S. nuclear umbrella proves insufficient.
It appears to be the first time a sitting South Korean defense minister has publicly entertained the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons, and marks a sharp departure from his predecessor, who repeatedly and firmly rejected the proposal under any condition.
Contacted by VOA, a South Korean defense ministry spokesperson maintained there has been “no change in the principle or position” that Seoul relies on U.S. extended deterrence and the U.S.-South Korea alliance to address the North Korean nuclear threat.
“However, if we cannot guarantee the survival and security of the state, all means and methods are open,” the spokesperson added, emphasizing the need to work closely with the United States.
A spokesperson for Yoon’s presidential office declined to comment for this story.
Most observers doubt South Korea will pursue nuclear weapons any time soon due to the massive economic and national security risks it would entail.
Not only would South Korea risk enraging China, but Seoul could upend its alliance with the United States and invite painful international sanctions, all while possibly encouraging others in the region to consider nuclear weapons of their own.
Despite the risks, Yoon continues to drive the once unthinkable idea further into the mainstream, raising concerns that the proposal could become more acceptable — and eventually turn into reality.
Nuke calls now routine
Yoon himself suggested last January that South Korea could develop nuclear arms if the North Korean threat escalated – raising alarm in Washington, where non-proliferation has long been a priority.
Three months later, Yoon and U.S. President Joe Biden signed what is known as the Washington Declaration, which bolstered U.S. defense assurances while reaffirming South Korea’s commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Yoon’s appointment of Kim, however, appears to contradict the spirit of that agreement, said Lee Sang-sin, a research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification. What stands out most, Lee said, is the lack of public reaction to Kim’s remarks.
Kim’s appointment has drawn little attention from South Korean media and been largely ignored by Western outlets — a possible indication that calls for South Korea’s nuclear armament have become routine.
“That’s what I have warned about,” said Lee. “[This conversation] has been normalized.”
When contacted by VOA, the White House National Security Council declined to directly comment on Kim's statements, instead emphasizing South Korea’s pledge under the non-proliferation treaty as outlined in the Washington Declaration.
“We will continue to work with our ROK allies to strengthen our alliance and ensure we are well-positioned to deter nuclear threats,” an NSC spokesman added.
Driving the conversation
Polls have long suggested a majority of South Koreans support acquiring nuclear weapons, although such views were once confined to the political fringes.
Under Yoon’s presidency, the debate has become so entrenched that even some state-backed research institutions are exploring the possibility of nuclear armament.
A June report by the state-run Institute for National Security Strategy recommended that Seoul consider government reviews and public debates on various options, including the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, NATO-style nuclear sharing, and South Korea developing its own arsenal.
Such calls are not only coming from Seoul. A growing number of former Trump officials have expressed an openness to the idea, with some even highlighting the geopolitical advantages of South Korea getting its own weapons – an idea that Trump himself once teased.
The possibility of Trump’s return, along with his "America First" stance, has fueled concerns in Seoul that U.S. protection may be less reliable long-term, further accelerating the nuclear debate.
Some in South Korea appear eager to capitalize on the trend. In an opinion piece this month, Choi Kang, president of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, an influential conservative research group, argued South Korean nuclear weapons should be presented as beneficial to the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
“If a South Korean nuclear arsenal aligned with U.S. security interests and came to be regarded as a ‘common asset’ of the alliance, then the United States might accept it or even support it,” Choi wrote.
Reality check?
But many analysts caution that such statements downplay the risks of nuclear armament.
“There really needs to be greater questioning of whether more nukes and more countries with nukes truly increases any country’s security situation and a serious examination of what Seoul stands to lose by choosing that path,” said Jenny Town, a North Korea specialist with the Washington-based Stimson Center.
Others, like Mason Richey, who teaches international politics at Seoul’s Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, argue it is unlikely South Korea would pursue nuclear weapons barring profound U.S.-South Korea alliance problems and/or severe regional instability.
“That said, every elite policymaker who engages the South Korea nuclear debate makes it easier to continue down the slippery slope of thinking about nuclear weapons, studying how to develop them, assuring a latent capability, deciding to develop them, and then actually building them,” he added.
White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara contributed to this report.
