Edition

Seoul’s Nuclear Temptations and the U.S.-South Korean Alliance

IN THIS ISSUE: Seoul’s Nuclear Temptations and the U.S.-South Korean Alliance , China Has More ICBM Launchers Than U.S., American Military Reports, Fears of Russian Nuclear Weapons Use Have Diminished, but Could Re-emerge, NATO Urges Russia to Respect Nuclear Pact with the US, EU’s Top Diplomat Says Iranian Deal Is Only Way to Stop Tehran’s Nuclear Program, Japan Plans to Dump Fukushima Wastewater

Published on February 7, 2023

Seoul’s Nuclear Temptations and the U.S.-South Korean Alliance 

Ankit Panda | War on the Rocks 

Amid drastic negative changes to its security environment and fundamental questions about the long-term reliability of the United States, South Korea is drawn — as it once was in the 1970s — to nuclear weapons. On Jan. 11, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, a conservative who has been outspoken about North Korea’s nuclear threats, voiced the possibility that Seoul could “acquire our own nuke.” Alluding to his country’s advanced scientific prowess, delivery systems, and long-acknowledged nuclear latency, Yoon noted that, should such a decision be made, Seoul’s advanced “science and technology” would ensure that the time required to build such a capability would be short. Yoon’s words have made global headlines and jolted alliance hands in Washington.

China Has More ICBM Launchers Than U.S., American Military Reports

Michael R. Gordon | The Wall Street Journal

The U.S. military has notified Congress that China now has more land-based intercontinental-range missile launchers than the U.S., fueling the debate about how Washington should respond to Beijing’s nuclear buildup. “The number of land-based fixed and mobile ICBM launchers in China exceeds the number of ICBM launchers in the United States,” the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees nuclear forces, wrote the Senate’s and House’s Armed Services Committees on Jan. 26.

Fears of Russian Nuclear Weapons Use Have Diminished, but Could Re-emerge

Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger | The New York Times

The possibility of nuclear escalation continues to influence American decisions over what advanced weaponry to give Ukraine. But nearly a year into the war there, American policymakers and intelligence analysts have more confidence that they understand at least some of Mr. Putin’s red lines — and what kinds of support for Ukraine will prompt statements of condemnation versus what might risk something more dangerous.

NATO Urges Russia to Respect Nuclear Pact with the US

Associated Press

NATO called Friday on Russia to respect the only treaty it has with the United States aimed at keeping a lid on nuclear weapons expansion and urged Moscow to allow on-the-ground inspections of military sites to resume…“We note with concern that Russia has failed to comply with legally-binding obligations under the New START Treaty,” NATO ambassadors said in a statement. The 30-nation U.S.-led military alliance supports the treaty and believes that it helps to limit the expansion of nuclear forces. The envoys said that Russia’s refusal to hold consultations or to allow U.S. inspections since last August “prevents the United States from exercising important rights under the Treaty, and undermines the United States’ ability to adequately verify Russian compliance with the Treaty’s central limits.”

EU’s Top Diplomat Says Iranian Deal Is Only Way to Stop Tehran’s Nuclear Program

Laurence Norman | The Wall Street Journal

The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, is refusing to give up on efforts to rescue the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, even as Tehran cracks down on protesters at home and helps Russia in its war against Ukraine. On a secure train returning from an EU leaders trip to Kyiv, Mr. Borrell told The Wall Street Journal that critics of his efforts to revive the pact perhaps “don’t value enough” the dangers of a nuclear Iran. “As far as I know, there is not an alternative to this deal to try to avoid Iran becoming nuclear,” he said.

Japan Plans to Dump Fukushima Wastewater Into a Pacific With a Toxic  History

AMY GUNIA | TIME 

Japan initially said that it would begin releasing the water into the ocean in the spring of 2023…The plan has faced widespread opposition. Japanese fishermen, international environmentalists, and other governments in the region, including China, South Korea, and Taiwan, have all expressed concern. Some of the strongest pushback has come from Pacific Island countries, including from lawmakers, former leaders, regional fisheries management groups, and other organizations.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.