Stop Reassuring South Korea about the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella

With nuclear talks stalled between Washington and Pyongyang while Kim Jong‐​un advertises his growing arsenal to the world, doubts about America’s “nuclear umbrella” over the Republic of Korea are increasing in both the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK). Washington’s promise to risk a nuclear attack on the American homeland—which will become vastly more dangerous if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea fulfills the prediction that it will have 200 nuclear weapons by 2027—looks increasingly shaky.Unfortunately, the establishment response is to do what was done before, trust in the promise of extended deterrence. Assume that an American president, threatened with the loss of multiple cities and death of millions of people, would nevertheless use nuclear weapons to protect the ROK. If the United States loses Honolulu and Chicago to defend Seoul, no matter! Americans will declare “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship” to protect South Korea.Don’t bet on it.Polls that show popular U.S. support for protecting the ROK never discuss the potential cost. Until a few years ago, attacks other than terrorist on the homeland seemed far‐​fetched. Although a conventional fight in Korea would be costly, far worse than Afghanistan or Iraq, the impact on America would still be limited. Given the enormous U.S. advantages in firepower and resources, casualties might remain in the tens of thousands—awful, but in the range of the first Korean conflict. Most important, America’s homeland would remain unmolested, as it has in every fight since the Civil War.Washington’s promise to risk a nuclear attack on the American homeland looks increasingly shaky.However, today Kim is increasingly able to retaliate against the U.S. homeland, as well as wreak havoc in East Asia, which includes American territories (Guam, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) and bases (Okinawa and Tokyo). Made aware that North Korea has far greater reach and could cause far greater harm—a death toll in the hundreds of thousands or millions—Americans likely would respond differently. In the abstract, defending other people sounds noble. But if mass death and destruction are the expected result, it is more accurately seen as suicidal.Thus, U.S. policymakers are understandably growing more nervous about the viability of the nuclear umbrella. Yet, ironically, they appear to be most concerned about whether South Koreans believe that Washington is prepared to sacrifice millions of its own citizens. And, in fact, some ROK officials appear to doubt that Washington would act irrationally and against its own interest.For instance, the nuclear issue has enlivened the ongoing South Korean presidential campaign. Conservative contenders Hong Joon-pyo and Yoo Song-min want “nuclear-sharing agreements” with Washington. A few years ago, leftish Assemblyman Lee Jong-geol suggested using “tactical nuclear as the last negotiating card.” Moreover, the public favors a South Korean nuclear deterrent. In September an Asan Institute poll found popular backing to be 69 percent.