By With President Obama’s anti-nuclear agenda it will be interesting to see how this turns out:
Overshadowed by the continuing tension over North Korea’s nuclear program, another nuclear dispute is emerging on the Korean Peninsula — this one between the United States and South Korea.
South Korea, which has no oil reserves, derives 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors and is running out of space to store the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
So the South Korean government wants to reprocess the used material — both to provide fuel for its next generation of fast-breeder reactors and to reduce its stored waste.
But South Korea is prohibited from such activities under a 1974 agreement with the United States. The plutonium that results from reprocessing spent fuel can power nuclear reactors — which South Korea insists is its only goal — but can also be used to make atomic bombs, as North Korea has done.
Washington wants to rein in the spread of reprocessing and enrichment as it grapples with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs. It retains some suspicions about South Korea, which briefly pursued nuclear weapons in the 1970s and experimented with reprocessing later. Allowing South Korea to reprocess or enrich the fuel, the United States fears, would set a precedent for other nations and give North Korea a pretext not to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
“The Americans say no to recycling, but don’t offer an alternative,” said Lee Un-chul, a nuclear scientist at Seoul National University. “They think we might change our minds and build nuclear weapons, depending on the situation with North Korea. In short, they don’t trust us. This is frustrating. We have to fight.”
That tug of war begins later this year when the two allies start renegotiating their nuclear treaty, which expires in 2014. South Korea is the site of the next nuclear security summit meeting, in 2012.
Analysts here say that any new deal that would permit Washington to continue blocking South Korea from recycling its fuel — even though it has agreed to let India, which is not even a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, do so — would hurt the national pride of the South Koreans, who have been loyal allies. [New York Times]
Read the rest at the link, but worries about giving an excuse to North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant because they are going to build them anyway. I would think that by allowing the South Koreans to reprocess their spent nuclear fuel the US is not only allowing South Korea to solve their spent fuel problem, but also sending a subtle message to the Chinese that the US is allowing the South Koreans to get closer to building nukes themselves if the North Korean threat isn’t reigned in.
11:46 pm on July 14th, 2010 1
Should the United States be the one to say who is allowed and who isn't allowed?
Especially considering that the United States is the only country ever, to use the nuclear weapon on humans?
12:31 am on July 15th, 2010 2
"Especially considering that the United States is the only country ever, to use the nuclear weapon on humans?"
…well, except for Soviet, Chinese and British/Australian/New Zealand, testing on their own soldiers…
…and don't forget the people with severe disabilities which were allegedly used as human guinea pigs during British nuclear tests at the Maralinga Test Site in Australia in the 1950s.
Tom, you are a lucky, lucky nationalist. You get to condemn America for using nuclear weapons… while experiencing the satisfactions of a nuked Japan.
On the other hand, Korea's biggest weakness is energy dependence… so I kinda support Korea doing what it takes to produce its own power.
1:34 am on July 15th, 2010 3
So ChickenHead, why should the United States be the one to say which country is allowed to have one and which ones don't?
6:58 am on July 15th, 2010 4
Yes, and then they MUST immediately vacate the country since when they would/do get the bomb it will be as dangerous as Pakistan. Imagine one of the leftest commies getting ahold of the button. It's time for S. Korea to protect itself/pay for own defense.
9:15 am on July 15th, 2010 5
@Tbonetylr
Re your comment about SK protecting itself, well let's remember the same goes for most of Western Europe and Japan and few others… It's NOT just SK that USA is actively providing help for national defense…
Also, SK already pays half or more of the operating cost (oil, electricity, housing) of USFK in ROK.
This is a complicated issue but just wanted to make sure others were aware that SK isn't getting everything for free…
11:01 am on July 15th, 2010 6
@5 OK Korea is not getting it's defense from the U.S for free but at half price?
12:47 pm on July 15th, 2010 7
I think the title of this post is wrong. It should be "What can the USA do to stop SK´s nuclear ambition". After all the treaty is going to expire in two years and Korea has no obligation to renew it.
1:03 pm on July 15th, 2010 8
half price for 28,500 troops, one wing of F-16, one squadron of A-10, one squadron of Apache, one division of Abrams and Bradleys, a hangar or two for Japan-bound AWACS and Global Hawks, yes. A minor fraction of USFK's total firepower.
Majority of US firepower in the region is located in Japan, most of it home-ported in Yokosuka. We are not the ones playing its host.
The tripwire troops in Korea have a different purpose. Remember that Reagan reducing US troop numbers by 1/3 in Korea led to President Park's brinksmanship with plutonium bombs. Absence of US footprint on Korea which will make ambiguous America's true commitment to its nuclear umbrella will place a severe pressure on the South Korean government to gain indigenous nuclear attack and defense capability. That does not bode well for anyone in NEA.
1:05 pm on July 15th, 2010 9
And half a GI. Oh yeah, that makes sense.
3:22 pm on July 15th, 2010 10
"one division of Abrams and Bradleys,"
This is incorrect, what fricking division are you referring to? 2ID has been stripped of most of their combat assets when the other two heavy brigades were relocated off peninsula. Its ONE heavy combat brigade left over and the support assets involved with it. The rest of the soldiers out here are just support / C4I type people. You got a small division of bean counters (logistics planners) down in Daegu, a fairly large signal brigade, a medical brigade, the transportation people and that's about it. Yongsan is almost entirely command and control staff now with a sprinkling of random support units.
You are correct that the US no longer has a significant ground combat force in the KTO, its all air / sea power projection from our base's in Japan. And the support / C4I stuff we provide the ROKs which is one of their biggest advantaged over China / NKs.
4:19 pm on July 15th, 2010 11
"So ChickenHead, why should the United States be the one to say which country is allowed to have one and which ones don’t?"
The United States government is devious and self-serving…
…but, though their own self-interest combined with a history of stability, they are the best thing going to keep less-stable and less-rational nations under control.
If given the choice of America attempting to limit possession of nuclear weapons through bribes and intimidation… or everyone who wants one being encouraged to whip one up in the lab, I'd take the former.
…and, in reality, that is pretty much the choice the world has been given.
Except for a few "rogue nations", the world doesn't really like the Ameri-centric system… but they go along because it is the best there is for ensuring global security and safety.
And, for the most part, the "rogue nations" that have/wish to have nuclear weapons are exactly the types of regimes that most rational people agree are the ones who shouldn't have them.
5:39 pm on July 15th, 2010 12
#10
Apologies for inaccuracies. The word 'brigade' was not present in my military vocabulary at the time of writing. I use 'division' above 'regiment'.
you are right about USFK's provision of advanced reconnaissance and intelligence assets being a big boon to ROK's fighting capabilities against China and NK, as well as promised provision of American AWACS to ROK in times of war, etcetera. However the benefit goes both ways. Staging ground in ROK makes it easier for US to perform ELINT, SIGINT, and airborne IMINT operations against China and NK. ROKAF has began deploying its own AWACS too for its own defense through the multi-billion dollar contributions of ROK's taxpayers, and also for the US's combined extension of defenses in the region [http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4489911]. Korea started paying for its own defense many years ago, has started paying half of the accommodation of US assets on its soil which is an agreement of mutual benefit, making steady but inexorable progress toward transforming USFK into a more versatile and multi-faceted force than what many of us here remember it to be. The level of development taking place within ROK Armed Forces can be described to be quite energetic when viewed relative to many other countries' own military development who still remain under eternal indispensable protection of the US's defensive sphere.
7:04 am on July 16th, 2010 13
John,
I'm not sure how much oil is payed for by S. Korea, but I know some in the S. Korean military STEALS oil from the U.S.
8:44 am on July 16th, 2010 14
ChickeHead 11 gives a good one-sentence summary of international relations today: "Except for a few “rogue nations”, the world doesn’t really like the Ameri-centric system… but they go along because it is the best there is for ensuring global security and safety." Trouble is, other powers are rising, so our preponderance is declining.
12:22 pm on July 16th, 2010 15
#13
We have vice versa happening too from time to time. In the end they are too minor to affect the overall context of USFK. And the context of USFK is one I surmise you haven't understood yet. US has not set foot on Korea just to provide military donations to seemingly xenophobic group of people living in a useless piece of land.
The United States gained one of its finest military fortress in its history when it absorbed ROK into its circle of influence, able to assemble its first line of defense and deterrence against the impending expansion of its East Asian enemies' interests which run contradictory to the US's own. America's bases in Japan, which safeguard most of its far-eastern military power, will remain protected for as long as the ROK military can maintain aerial and sea denial against the eastward advance of America's foremost rival in the region. War of most nature will favor having more allies, and having understood that, the US set an accordant objective which it eventually accomplished, and their next job that they are tending to now is tying up loose ends left over from their activities. Some loose ends include allowing ROK a more free rein over its own nuclear and rocket technology, which is indeed closely related with development of WMD and does demand a close watch from a vanguard of the international community, but also have greater use for other purposes for which the modern ROK has already set many great designs.
2:08 pm on July 16th, 2010 16
The ROK is pretty much a rational nation unlike their wacko siblings north of the DMZ. Therefore we have no business telling the South Koreans whether or not they can reprocess their used nuclear or not. The last sentence of GI Korea's blog about sending a subtle message to Red China to keep the NK under control or else the SK might go nuclear themselves is key.
10:05 pm on July 16th, 2010 17
@14 – That is question people need to ask themselves, would they rather have the Chinese centric system because they are the only power rising enough to exceed American power this century.
10:35 am on July 18th, 2010 18
@17,
China and Russia both. I had discounted Russia until Putin appointed himself Prime Minister for life after transferring many of the Presidential powers to the PM. This guy is amazing in how he beat Chavez completely for efficiency it taking over a nation. In effect Putin is a non-elected, self-appointed executive authority for Russia, and he hates both democracy and the USA. Russia has immense resources and historically they've been a dominate force. They were just very ineffective in the use of those resources the last 50 years or so, Putin has announced he plans on changing that.
That is why we are so set in having boots on the ground in the East Asia theater. The same reason we're putting stuff in the Ukraine and why those powers that be are screaming bloody murder about it. A military presence denotes a projection of power, the presence doesn't necessarily need to be strong to do this. Merely having soldiers present somewhere can alter an aggressive nations intents and plans of action.
The above poster K has the right of it all. We're not here to project the Korean people out of some misguided seance of world peace / hero-ism. Although we make a really good attempt at appearing to do that. We're here to ensure China / Russia don't establish regional hegemony / start to run things. We doing the same with Europe. By having significant military presence in both area's we've established a boundary on the spheres of influence that either of those nations can have. We've pinned them in basically.
Study how the Georgian conflict went to get a good idea of what happens when an aggressive world power does a local land grab and meets another world power determined not to let them win.
11:24 am on July 18th, 2010 19
someotherguy 18, messing around with Ukraine isn't too smart. It has a large Russian population because of the way the Sovietskies drew the borders of their "republics". It would be a very bad idea to get mixed up in a Ukrainian-Russian conflict over Sevastopol or any other part of Crimea.
GI Korea 17, naturally I prefer us to the Chinese! Other people around the world, in particular the ruling elites, might feel diffeently. We shall see.