South Korea must not believe USA and not Rely on USA.

                                   South Korea must not believe USA.. Because .......

Korea needs a credible deterrent. There are few regions in the world as endangered as Northeast Asia, which has rapidly become more unstable over the past 5 to 7 years.

Northeast Asia is one of the focal points of escalating US-China rivalry. On one hand, North Korea, which initially developed nuclear weapons primarily as a means of deterrence, has come close to succeeding in developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of striking the US mainland after 2016-2017. Currently, North Korea is actively pursuing tactical nuclear weapons to overcome the South Korean military.

As a result, North Korea's nuclear program is transitioning from a defensive tool to an offensive one, even a secondary invasion option.

In South Korean society, there is a lack of awareness about this new challenge. Koreans have lived under the US nuclear umbrella for around 70 years, and they tend to neglect external threats.

They still believe they can effectively deter threats with the help of the United States. However, in the changing landscape, this assurance might be an illusion.

When the ROK-US Alliance was formed in 1953, North Korea lacked the capability to attack not only the US mainland but also overseas US military bases.

If the US had committed to protect Korea according to the alliance pact, only American soldiers would have had the duty to sacrifice themselves for the country.

Today's situation is vastly different. North Korea possesses or will soon possess ICBMs capable of turning US cities like New York or LA into ruins in an instant.

In such a scenario, if a US President decides to protect Seoul according to the ROK-US Alliance, they might face the dilemma of sacrificing New York.

Can the US President truly guarantee South Korea's security?

The answer to this question is uncertain. However, without a credible deterrent, South Korea would likely face defeat when confronting a North Korea armed with tactical nuclear weapons. In this situation, can Koreans shift the responsibility for their security to other nations?

Most of us  believe that the US has provided significant military aid to Ukraine, but this is not entirely true.

US support for Ukraine is limited. Despite continuous requests from the Ukrainian government, the US has not sent a single tank or fighter jet to the Ukrainian military in the 18 months following the war's outbreak.

While the US possesses around 8,100 M1 Abrams tanks, it will only provide 31 of them to Ukraine over the next two years. There are no promises regarding fighter jets.

Even in terms of missiles or bombs, the US provides only those with a range of just a few dozen kilometers.

The reason for such caution is to avoid provoking Russia, a nuclear-armed nation.

This stance might hold meaning for the US, but what lesson can South Korea learn?

It's that the US acts cautiously when dealing with nuclear powers.

If a second Korean War erupts on the peninsula, will the US, facing the ICBM threat from North Korea, be willing to sacrifice LA to protect Seoul?

 

It's uncertain. Now, South Korea must consider developing nuclear weapons as a credible deterrent while maintaining the ROK-US Alliance.

In a multipolar world, the global landscape is resembling a village with no sheriff and many gangs.

Surviving in such a village without a gun is challenging.

Of course, South Korea's nuclear development won't be easy. While South Korea has the technological and financial resources, attempting nuclear development would lead to international sanctions.

Especially, China's pressure would be severe. Consequently, the economy would suffer, and the South Korean population, accustomed to a comfortable life without a strong sense of security crisis, might resist this pressure and have the will to continue nuclear development.

Therefore, the likelihood of South Korea going nuclear seems low.

However, the unfortunate reality is that there might be no better option today than the development and deployment of nuclear weapons to ensure a nation's safety and survival.