Canada's allies want to know if they can still shelter under the U.S. nuclear umbrella

It seems that the word “nuclear” means a symbolic day.

Since the inauguration of the second Trump administration early this year, more and more of Washington’s closest allies have begun quietly (and sometimes not as quiet) whether they can still count on America’s nuclear deterrence capabilities for decades.

Few places feel that uncertainty is more acute than South Korea.

Faced with North Korea’s instability, often hostile nuclear weapons neighbors, it may not be surprising that recent polls show that almost three-quarters of the Democratic South favor their country to buy nuclear weapons.

While Canada’s concept of obtaining nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty is extremely far away and there is nowhere on public policy radar, some of the country’s major allies are actively debating what seemed impossible to imagine a few years ago.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in early March that his country was considering access to nuclear weapons, which is likely obtained through security assurances negotiated with France.

South Korea is in the presidential election, with no luxury goods for nearby nuclear weapons alternatives

“As of now, South Korea relies entirely on the extended deterrence provided by the United States,” said Band Joe, a former South Korean Navy official at the National Diplomatic Academy in Seoul.

Change North Korean posture

Apart from Washington's silent attitude towards allies, the Republic of Korea has other reasons to be avant-garde.

Russia and North Korea have signed strategic partnerships, and Seoul is concerned about high-tech transfers that can be used for missile technology. The North Korean army is fighting with Russian soldiers and Ukraine, gaining key battlefield experience.

More importantly, Ban said, Pyongyang has quietly changed its nuclear posture recently, meaning its weapons are no longer purely defensive.

The United States and South Korea work together to contain North Korea through a bilateral agreement called the Nuclear Consultative Group, which meets twice a year at the level of senior officials, including defense, military and intelligence.

Ban said his country would not simply unilaterally start pursuing nuclear weapons, which he personally suspects would be a wise policy.

“While “all options still need to be on the desktop,” Ban said, I don't think nuclear is an option [to pursue] – Or selected as a government qualified or relevant policy. ”

The huge cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is a drawback, but Ban says his country doesn't want to go that path and doesn't like the international message it sends in regards to nuclear non-proliferation.

“If South Korea only wants to create nuclear weapons without any negotiations, it is not a good sign or a rational act,” he said.

That being said, South Korea has not signed or ratified a treaty that prohibits nuclear weapons, under the international nuclear weapons abolition campaign.

This is likely a strategy for the Seoul government.

Ban said diplomacy must be at the forefront and center.

“If the United States is willing to provide an escalating nuclear deterrence to block any type of North Korea's nuclear threat, then South Korea has no reason to equip nuclear weapons,” he said.

Even so, the concept of obtaining nuclear weapons does have political appeal in Seoul.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol publicly endorsed the idea after he announced martial law after he was removed from his office by the country's constitutional court last month.

Yoo Yong-Won, a member of the Yoon Conservative People’s Party (PPP), launched an initiative in the National Assembly called the Mugunghwa Forum, which aims to improve the verification of the nuclear reconciliation if needed.

In negotiations with Washington, it depends largely on the Trump administration’s demands for South Korea.

Like Canada, Donald Trump's first iteration as president requires Seoul to bear more defense burdens and costs.

The government has indeed increased its defense spending, but it is not as much as Trump wants, South Korea's Deputy Defense Secretary Hunki Cho told CBC News in a recent interview.

Talks have resumed.

“I can say limited things,” Joe said. “We are currently in the process of these negotiations, but I think I can say that I believe President Trump will take into account exactly what we have done so far and the position of the Korean Peninsula in the Indo-Pacific region.”

At this point of discussion, the United States “has not yet explicitly required” South Korea to increase its defense spending, Joe said. The country allocates approximately US$50 billion (2.8% of GDP) to national defense each year.

Researchers at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies recently pointed out that the Trump administration has remained silent on whether U.S. nuclear deterrence is a question.

Much of the uncertainty is driven by Trump’s threat, rather than protecting allies that do not meet his expectations and spending thresholds.

Strangely, this is where Canada enters South Korea’s dialogue, which is frustrating and shocking to watch the explosion and economic bullying of the US annexation.

In the background briefing, the mockery of Canadian sovereignty among the Ministry of Defense and Seoul’s senior foreign ministries in the Ministry of Defense and foreign sectors is the reason for the concern.

The feeling they get is, if Canada can be put aside, what does that mean to them? – What does they do for this?