South Korean media: The U.S. pushes strategic shift in nuclear umbrella… Increasing emphasis on short-range tactical nuclear weapons

¬ Deputy Defense Secretary Elbridge Colby leading discussions; if approved, could lead to deployment among U.S. forces stationed in South Korea

According to NBC News reporting from the U.S. local time on the 5th, in response to the potential for China and Russia to attack U.S. allies, the U.S. Department of Defense is currently discussing a new nuclear strategy aimed at expanding the role of "tactical nuclear weapons." To enhance allies' confidence in nuclear deterrence (nuclear umbrella), the U.S. plans to reconfigure its nuclear strategy, shifting focus toward short-range tactical nuclear weapons targeting limited objectives—rather than long-range "strategic nuclear weapons," which have very low actual use probability. This implies that nuclear weapons would become viable options for actual combat operations. Once adopted, this strategy is expected to significantly impact the defense posture on the Korean Peninsula facing North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, as well as the security landscape of South Korea and Japan. Tactical nuclear weapons fully withdrawn from U.S. forces stationed in South Korea in 1991 may be redeployed.

A senior U.S. Defense Department official stated, “We believe we need reliable nuclear options,” emphasizing that the new strategy will prioritize short-range tactical nuclear weapons over long-range strategic missiles. This approach aims to expand the range of tangible and credible options, thereby strengthening deterrence. The initiative is led by Deputy Defense Secretary Elbridge Colby, who delivered an off-the-record speech at the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, during an extended deterrence seminar. STRATCOM is the core combat command responsible for global nuclear warfare operations and strategic deterrence. Its responsibilities also include providing extended deterrence capabilities to allies such as South Korea.

Responding to attacks on U.S. alliances by countries like Russia… "Tactical nuclear weapons must be available"

The U.S. nuclear doctrine has historically been centered around long-range strategic weapons. The three pillars—land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) operating from fixed launch sites, stealthy submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SSBNs) moving beneath the ocean surface, and strategic bombers like the B-2 and B-52 capable of airborne nuclear delivery—are designed to mutually compensate for weaknesses. This ensures that even under a first-strike attack by an adversary, at least one force element survives to deliver a decisive retaliatory nuclear strike. This design underpins the so-called "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD)—a balance of fear preventing full-scale war between nuclear powers. MAD represents the capability where even if one side launches a nuclear attack first, the other can still retaliate, resulting in total destruction of both sides. It was widely regarded as playing the role of a final peacekeeper during the Cold War era.

In contrast, tactical nuclear weapons are designed to target specific military objectives such as enemy troop units or bases, aiming for battlefield victory rather than large-scale devastation. Colby has long advocated for equipping smaller, short-range warheads intended for precise, limited battlefield targets—not entire cities. He argues that the current U.S. reliance on long-range strategic weapons lacks credibility. A senior Defense Department official said: “If extended deterrence is to be trusted, we must provide political leadership in allied nations with nuclear forces they perceive as practically usable in common sense terms. Otherwise, the options available to U.S. leadership shrink to extreme choices that adversaries won’t believe in, rendering deterrence ineffective.”

The New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired in February this year, effectively collapsing the nuclear arms control framework between the two nations.

Although still in discussion, if this concept is actually adopted, it could greatly affect how the Korean Peninsula responds to North Korea’s nuclear threats. U.S. forces stationed in South Korea used various forms of tactical nuclear weapons starting from 1958, peaking at around 700 nuclear warheads deployed. In 1991, following the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, all remaining more than 100 tactical nuclear weapons were fully withdrawn. Amid escalating North Korean nuclear threats, whenever calls arise domestically and internationally for nuclear armament or deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. has consistently maintained that strategic nuclear weapons deployed on the mainland and in the Pacific region alone are sufficient to provide adequate extended deterrence. In 2023, to strengthen planning and coordination of nuclear deterrence policy, South Korea and the U.S. established the Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG). Yet, skepticism remains regarding whether the U.S. would truly sacrifice Los Angeles (LA) to defend Seoul. In the case of NATO, the U.S. is currently implementing nuclear sharing by deploying American tactical nuclear weapons to European allies. The U.S. handles operational planning and decision-making, while NATO allies provide deployment facilities and assume part of the responsibility for launching nuclear weapons.

However, concerns persist that emphasizing tactical nuclear weapons too much could lower the threshold for nuclear use, increasing the risk of conventional conflicts escalating into nuclear war. Others warn that in scenarios requiring long-range nuclear deployments, allowing the president to choose alternatives might undermine readiness posture. While formulating nuclear use principles or adjusting nuclear posture falls within the government's inherent authority, congressional cooperation is crucial to reflect these changes in actual military capabilities and budget allocations. Last year, when drafting the new National Defense Strategy (NDS), Colby failed to engage in sufficient consultation with Congress, sparking significant discontent within the Republican Party. A senior congressional figure criticized NBC, saying: “This is a weak and cowardly study, far removed from the president’s declared intention to make nuclear deterrence great again.” In 2023, President Donald Trump called for resuming nuclear weapons testing—halted since 1992—to keep pace with the speed of weapon development by nations like Russia.

Strategic vs. Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Strategic nuclear weapons are designed to destroy broad areas such as an enemy nation’s territory or infrastructure, with yields ranging from hundreds of kilotons (kt) to megatons (Mt). Conversely, tactical nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons intended for attacking limited military targets such as enemy troops or bases, typically with yields below tens of kilotons. If strategic nuclear weapons are considered "deterrence weapons" based on the principle of mutual assured destruction (MAD)—where both sides face total annihilation—then tactical nuclear weapons are closer to actual combat-ready weapons.

Source: Chosun Ilbo

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1872830118728842/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.