Skip to main content

To Pursue an Independent Nuclear Deterrent or Not? Japan’s and South Korea’s Nuclear Decision Making Models

  • Conference paper
Nuclear Threats and Security Challenges

Abstract

Concerns regarding potential nuclear proliferation activities of South Korea and Japan have increased following recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea and following regional hegemonic actions by China. Both of these countries have bilateral security agreements with the United States, and are covered under the so-called “nuclear umbrella.” This paper poses the question: If these countries enjoy these security guarantees, what factors could contribute to their decision to pursue proliferation activities? This paper reviews some of the relevant literature on nuclear-decision making before proposing that perhaps these models are complementary rather than competing. For the purposes of South Korea and Japan, this paper asserts that there are two contributing factors that could cause either country to engage in proliferation activities: loss of confidence in the U.S. commitment to its extended deterrence obligations and regional security threats. Using case studies, this paper reviews the past proliferation activities by these two countries, and examines the mitigating factors that led to past decisions, and how such similar factors could impact future decisions. This paper uses historical analysis and investigation of contemporary security issues to examine the roles that extended deterrence and regional security have played and may play in the future, in each country’s interests in engaging in increased nuclear proliferation-sensitive activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sagan [1], 55.

  2. 2.

    Waltz [2].

  3. 3.

    Sagan, “Why do States,” 57.

  4. 4.

    Solingen [3], 39.

  5. 5.

    Ibid, 44

  6. 6.

    Ibid, 55.

  7. 7.

    Ibid, 55.

  8. 8.

    United Nations [4].

  9. 9.

    Obama [5].

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    “Treaty of Mutual Security Between Japan and the United States of America,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan, January 19, 1960. Accessed February 26, 2014, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html. “Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea,” The Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, October 1, 1953. Accessed February 26, 2014, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp

  12. 12.

    Choi and Park [6], p. 374.

  13. 13.

    Jae-Bong [7].

  14. 14.

    Ibid, 375.

  15. 15.

    Ibid, 376.

  16. 16.

    Hughes [8], 94.

  17. 17.

    Bush [9], 3.

  18. 18.

    Choi and Park, 375.

  19. 19.

    Seok-Soo Lee, “The Future of Extended Deterrence: A South Korean Perspective,” Fondation por la Recherche Strategique, No 03/2010, 52.

  20. 20.

    Bush, 3.

  21. 21.

    Choi and Park, 375.

  22. 22.

    Hughes, 94.

  23. 23.

    Choi and Park, 376.

  24. 24.

    Guthe and Scheber [10], 14.

  25. 25.

    Lee, 53

  26. 26.

    Hughes [8], 94.

  27. 27.

    United Nations Security Council [11].

  28. 28.

    Byun [12].

  29. 29.

    Powell [13].

  30. 30.

    Guthe and Scheber, 33.

  31. 31.

    Barbara Demick [14].

  32. 32.

    Guthe and Scheber, 11.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, 11.

  34. 34.

    Ben Rhodes, Conference Call Briefing by Ben Rhodes, Mike Froman, Amb. Jeff Bader, Danny Russel, June 26, 2010, White House,

  35. 35.

    Yong-Soo and Bong-Moon [15].

  36. 36.

    Nuclear Posture Review.

  37. 37.

    “Treaty of Mutual Security Between Japan and the United States of America.”

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    Guthe and Scheber, 45.

  40. 40.

    Green and Furukawa [16], 349.

  41. 41.

    Campbell [17], 221.

  42. 42.

    Ibid, 222.

  43. 43.

    Green and Furukawa, 350.

  44. 44.

    Ibid, 352.

  45. 45.

    Campbell, 222.

  46. 46.

    Ibid, 227.

  47. 47.

    William J. Perry, chair, “America’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report to the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States,” US Institute of Peace, 26.

  48. 48.

    Reported in Jeffrey Lewis, “Japan Hates TLAM-N,” Arms Control Wonk, January 25, 2010.

  49. 49.

    Nuclear Posture Review.

  50. 50.

    Ministry of Defense [18], 58.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, 61.

  52. 52.

    Soble [19].

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Aoki and Yoshida [20].

  55. 55.

    Green and Furukawa, 354.

  56. 56.

    Japan, China Spat over Nuclear arsenal.

  57. 57.

    Ministry of Defense, Japan, White Paper 2013, Section Two: Security Environment in the Vicinity of Japan, 3. http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2013/07_Part1_Chapter0_Sec2.pdf

  58. 58.

    Pacific Forum CSIS [21].

  59. 59.

    “Nuclear Arms Card for Japan,” The Japan Times, April 29, 2013. Accessed July 15, 2013: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/04/29/commentary/nuclear-arms-card-for-japan/#.Ud8x-T7wK50

  60. 60.

    Nuclear Posture Review.

  61. 61.

    Nuclear Posture Review.

  62. 62.

    Nuclear Posture Review.

  63. 63.

    Ministry of Defense, Japan, White Paper 2013, Part 2, Section 3, p. 100. Accessed February 26, 2014/ http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2013/21_Part2_Chapter1_Sec1.pdf

References

  1. Sagan S (1996/1997) Why do States build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb. Int Secur 21(3): 55

    Google Scholar 

  2. Waltz KN (2008) Realism and international politics. Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Solingen E (2010) Domestic models of political survival: why some do and others don’t (Proliferate). In: Potter WC, Mukhatzhanova G (eds) Forecasting nuclear proliferation in the 21st century: the role of theory. Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  4. United Nations (1968) Treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Obama B (2009) Remarks by President Obama. (speech Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009), The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered

  6. Choi K, Park J-S (2008) South Korea: fears of abandonment and entrapment. In: Algappa M (ed) The long shadow: nuclear weapons and security in 21st century Asia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 374

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jae-Bong L (2009) U.S. deployment of nuclear weapons in 1950s South Korea & North Korea’s nuclear development: toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Asia-Pacific J Jpn Focus, February 17, 2009. http://www.japanfocus.org/-lee-jae_bong/3053. Accessed 26 Feb 2014

  8. Hughes CW (2007) North Korea’s nuclear weapons: implications for the nuclear ambitions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia Policy 3:94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bush RC (2011) The US Policy of Extended Deterrence in East Asia: history, current views, and implications. Foreign Policy as Brookings, Arms Control Series, Paper 5, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  10. Guthe K, Scheber T (2011) Assuring South Korea and Japan as the role and number of US nuclear weapons are reduced. Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and Concepts Office, Report Number ASCO 2011 003, p 14

    Google Scholar 

  11. United Nations Security Council (2006) Resolution 1718 Nonproliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 14 October 2006, (S/RES/1718). http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718%282006%29. Accessed 15 July 2013

  12. Byun S-W (2010) North Korea’s provocations and their impact on Northeast Asian regional security. Center for US-Korea Policy

    Google Scholar 

  13. Powell B (2010) Behind the Koreas’ artillery fire: Kim’s succession. Time, November 23, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  14. Demick B (2003) More South Korean’s support developing nuclear weapons. The Los Angeles Times, May 18. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/18/world/la-fg-south-korea-nuclear-20130519

  15. Yong-Soo J, Bong-Moon K (2014) Terms of wartime OPCON discussed. Korea Joongang Daily, September 14, 2014. http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2995120

  16. Green M, Furukawa K (2008) Japan: new nuclear realism. In: Algappa M (ed) The long shadow: nuclear weapons in 21st century Asia. Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 349

    Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell KM (2004) The nuclear tipping point: why states reconsider their nuclear choices. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, p 221

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ministry of Defense (2010) The Defense of Japan, p 58

    Google Scholar 

  19. Soble J (2013) Japan criticises China over maritime disputes in white paper. The Financial Times, July 9, 2013. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d676d58e-e84a-11e2-9aad-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YmUvGnPI. Accessed 15 July 2013

  20. Aoki M, Yoshida R (2013) U.S. will protect Allies, Kerry Assures Tokyo. The Japan Times, April 15, 2013. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/15/national/u-s-will-protect-allies-kerry-assures-tokyo/#.Ud8-2z7wK50. Accessed 13 July 2013

  21. Pacific Forum CSIS (2001) TMD and Japan: the first state of integrating TMD and NMD into Alliance Missile Defense. Issues and Insights 1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimer

Remarks expressed in this article are solely the authors’ own and do not represent those of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy or any other U.S. government agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan L. Fearey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Saunders, E.C., Fearey, B.L. (2015). To Pursue an Independent Nuclear Deterrent or Not? Japan’s and South Korea’s Nuclear Decision Making Models. In: Apikyan, S., Diamond, D. (eds) Nuclear Threats and Security Challenges. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series B: Physics and Biophysics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9894-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics