North Korea's near-incessant military provocations in recent weeks are widely assumed to be a prelude to the ultimate demonstration of Pyongyang's might: a seventh underground nuclear test. And that is stoking renewed fears in South Korea that the erratic regime in the North might one day actually use one of its fearsome weapons.
For a growing number of South Koreans, obtaining a comparable nuclear deterrent is becoming a realistic option to counter the North's provocations. The issue, however, is deeply polarizing.
North Korea has fired hundreds of artillery rounds and rockets into the sea off its east and west coasts in the last two days. It has followed up the barrages with demands issued through state media yesterday that the US and South Korea halt bilateral exercises, which a government official described as a "highly irritating, provocative act in the frontline area."
Missile launches
The bombardments were a breach of the 2018 inter-Korean agreement on reducing military tensions along the border that divides the peninsula, Seoul insists. And they come after the launch of more than a dozen short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, including a weapon that Pyongyang claims was an advanced new missile, which flew over northern Japan.
Even more worrying were images of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un overseeing exercises intended as a "simulation" of a nuclear attack on South Korea, which Pyongyang said were a "warning" to Seoul and the US.
On October 13, Chung Jin-suk, the deputy speaker of the National Assembly, called for further reinforcement of the South Korea-US security alliance, including the "nuclear umbrella" that Washington provides.
"It should not be overlooked that North Korea's recent missile provocations involve not just ballistic missiles but also tactical nuclear simulations," he said. "Reinforcing the South Korea-US military alliance like an iron wall is the only solution."
"We need to dramatically strengthen the US extended deterrence or the nuclear umbrella."
Broad public support
Others have gone even further, with influential PPP member Kim Gi-hyeon adding to the debate by insisting that the only long-term solution is for South Korea to have its own nuclear capabilities. A growing number of concerned residents of the South agree with that position.
"According to recent surveys, more than half of the people believe South Korea needs a strategic nuclear capability to act as a deterrent to the North," said Ahn Yinhay, a professor at Korea University in Seoul.
"There are many people who believe in the idea of tit-for-tat, and that only a nuclear capability here in the South will be sufficient to deter another nuclear power," she said.
A study released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February showed that 71% of South Koreans were in favor of the nation having its own nuclear weapons program. A similar poll, conducted in May by the Asian Institute for Policy Studies, put the figure at 70.2%.
South Korea declared in 1992 that US nuclear weapons would be withdrawn from its territory as a sign of its commitment to a nuclear-free peninsula, Ahn points out. But it was a unilateral move that failed to have the desired impact on the regime in the North.
Instead of scrapping its atomic program, Pyongyang pushed ahead with development and announced in April 2003 that it was withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Three years later, it carried out its first underground nuclear test. There have been an additional five tests at the Punggye-ri proving grounds, with another expected soon.
President Yoon Suk-yeol has stated that his government is "looking carefully at various possibilities" when it comes to defending the nation from the North, including nuclear weapons.
Despite the clamor from within his own party and a good portion of the public, Yoon is expected to stick with the protection of the US nuclear deterrent for the time being. Should the North continue to ratchet up regional tensions or demonstrate a worrying new offensive capability, that could very quickly change.
