17

SEOUL — South Korea can now develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets far beyond the Korean Peninsula, following the United States’ approval to lift a 42-year-old restriction on its ally’s missile development program.

South Korean and U.S. leaders announced the termination of missile guidelines imposed on Seoul in 1979. At the time, South Korea wanted to acquire American technology to develop its own missiles, and in return, the Asian nation agreed to limit the range of its missiles to 180 kilometers with a maximum payload of 500 kilograms.

The sanctions came when it was discovered that South Korea wanted to develop nukes. So if the U.S. is willing to punish one of its biggest allies, why is the U.S. turning a blind eye on Israel's covert and unofficial nuclear program?

Community
  • 1
Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290

7 Answers7

50

There are several points that invalidate the comparison of South Korean situation to Israeli one.

First, "ballistic missile" does not equate "nuke" - there are plenty ballistic tactical missiles with conventional payloads, and South Korea has no nuclear weapons (as far as we know). Thus, "sanctions", as you called them, were not a result of Korea starting a nuclear program.

Second, missile restrictions were not "sanctions" - they were a result of bilateral accords between ROK and USA, and they were a condition USA placed on missile-related technology transfers Korea wanted. Israel never asked USA for any tech in their ballisic missile program, save for 1975, when they asked to be given Pershing IIs as a part of military assistance program following their withdrawal from Sinai (USA refused that point, and Israel developed Jericho II missile with similar capabilities); so there is no leverage for USA there.

Thus, drawing parallels between these two situations is not viable - they are too different.

Danila Smirnov
  • 3,983
  • 17
  • 29
  • 5
    It seems the differences between US military aid to ROK and Israel are not that different to warrant the "drawing parallels between these two situations is not viable" comment. – Dave May 28 '21 at 12:15
  • 5
    @Dave I meant the situations in the question - korean ballistic missile program is quite different to israeli nuclear program, and USA military aid is only involved in one of them. – Danila Smirnov May 30 '21 at 06:50
  • 2
    in fact, the US is a major customer for Israeli technology, especially in missiles and electronics, as it's often way superior to their own. – jwenting May 30 '21 at 14:04
15

The security relationship between the US and the Republic of Korea involves US troops on Korean soil and an integrated military structure. There used to be US nuclear weapons based in the ROK, but this was less institutionalized than the nuclear sharing within NATO. In return for the "nuclear umbrella," the ROK agreed to limit their own strategic arms projects.

This is unlike the relationship between the US and Israel.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
14

First, Israel's nuclear capability was first developed in the mid-late 60s, when Israel was in considerable existential risk and while the US was not nearly as closely aligned with Israel as it is now. Its development now would most likely result in much more international pushback.

The missiles are deniable, as Israel has never acknowledged its own nuclear force. They serve just as well a deterrent without it, so there is no need for official recognition.

The given South Korea example is somewhat besides the point as a) didn't concern nukes b) didn't concern punishment and c) did concern conditions for a weapon/technology transfer which are something entirely different.

Israel has a close relationship with the US (some would say unhealthily close). From an US point of view, rather than being "on the hook" to guarantee Israel's survival in extreme conditions - say another, unlikely, Yom Kippur war, or an Iranian nuclear strike - Israel's nuclear force allows it to carry out its own deterrence. As a long as appearances are maintained by deniability and the likelihood of an Israeli use are extremely low, or could appear justified if it did happen, there is a fair bit of upside for the US to a very close ally being able to defend itself without needing to draw in direct US military intervention, especially of a nuclear nature.

The only real downside is when nuclear non-proliferation is pursued against states like North Korea, where there is a risk of appearing to have double standards. However North Korea's behavior is so extreme that it has few friends anyway and Israeli nukes are not a significant factor there. And, again, deniable. Iran? Somewhat isolated diplomatically, not extremely popular in the neighborhood and if anything, they tend to give quite some bit of justification to Israel's forces.

Is this "fair"? Not something this answer is trying to address.

Note that both Pakistan and India openly "went nuclear" with rather limited long term downsides to both.

Last, the ongoing controversy about Israel's actions and unconditional US support has little to do with those nukes and much more with the failure of Israel to reach a fair agreement with the Palestinians (who, as a comment mentions, are not at all the potential targets of these nukes).

whoisit
  • 5,909
  • 23
  • 55
Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
  • 83,219
  • 11
  • 197
  • 338
  • 7
    Worth noting that Israel is hardly likely to use nukes against the Palestinians - it's too close to their own land (or they might argue that it is their own land) and the negative impacts of a nuclear detonation in your own back yard are so severe they would be crazy to even consider it. Iran is a more likely target, or possibly Egypt, but even those are a bit too close by to make much sense. – Darrel Hoffman May 28 '21 at 18:52
  • 2
    My take is that they use the capability as a deterrent -- "If we're ever facing destruction, we'll damn well make sure we don't go out alone". It's - ironically enough - a bit like holding a suicide vest with a dead man's switch and an estimated blast radius of several miles. – Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI May 29 '21 at 22:35
  • 2
    @DarrelHoffman Israel's nuclear weapons are literally a doomsday weapon, only for taking their enemies with them when destruction is inevitable. – jwenting May 30 '21 at 14:06
  • The US also knew a lot about the Pakistani nuclear program, but chose to do next to nothing about it, especially during the Afghan war. Carter did pass some kind of formal resolution, but it was largely ignored during the Reagan years. The latter's CIA director even confronted Zia with the evidence around 1981, but Zia just gave some non-denial denial, and that was pretty much it. – the gods from engineering Feb 22 '23 at 10:05
  • There are some declassified CIA assessments showing that by 1985 the US policy was to prevent Zia from carrying a nuclear test, i.e. becoming an overt nuclear-weapons power. In some sense, that kind of policy is still succeeding wrt to Israel. – the gods from engineering Feb 22 '23 at 10:12
9

  1. If something is covert, how do you determine that it actually exists?

  2. Israel does not pose a threat to the US, unlike some others who have been or are now attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Compare the British & French development post-WWII, or the later Indian and Pakistani programs.

jamesqf
  • 12,474
  • 1
  • 29
  • 48
  • 5
    For 1, most countries, America included, have intelligence agencies. It's rather hard to hide a nuclear purifying facility so I'm quite certain if they have one, the US would know about it. – Shmuel Newmark May 28 '21 at 16:08
  • 3
    @ShmuelNewmark yes, and all those intelligence agencies know that Israel has nukes. – Eric Duminil May 29 '21 at 08:15
  • @Shmuel Newmark: See point #2. If something is only known to the intelligence agency, and not (beyond rumour) to the general public, then you don't have to make a big deal about it. Also note that intelligence agencies have been known to be wrong. Their job is to make worst-case assessments on the limited data they can acquire. So assume Israel does have nukes: what's the worst case for the US? – jamesqf May 29 '21 at 17:03
2

Isreal is a key US ally in the middle east. Its ability to survive(and win) in a standoff with Arab countries in the region is a part of US power projection strategy here.

Also, comparing to ROK, Israel is far more independent in its politics. So, we have not very usual situation, when US cannot dictate its ally what to do.

Summarizing with huge pro-Israel lobby in the US, here we are.

user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
  • 5
    -1. is a part of US power projection strategy here. No, it isn't, though it is often put forward as an argument for unconditional support of Israel. In 1991, rather than being a help, Israel was an active hindrance because the coalition had to expand significant effort to stop Scuds landing on Israel which might have otherwise drawn in Israel into the fight, imploding the Arab components of the coalition. The US military, to the best of my knowledge, has very rarely, if ever launched actions from Israeli territory, unlike from other allies. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica May 28 '21 at 18:06
  • 3
    Its only base in Israel is definitely out of place by its lack of ambition, for such an important ally. In other words, at a "power projection strategy" level, the US does its best to minimize the visibility of its alliance with Israel whenever it is operating on the basis of strictly US interests. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica May 28 '21 at 18:07
1

The elephant in the room is that Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, whereas the two Koreas and Iran are. This means that Israel is legally free to develop its capacity on its own (if it has the necessary scientific and financial resources), while the signatories have assumed an obligation not to develop nuclear weapons, in exchange for getting assistance in developing nuclear energy for peaceful means.

From Wikipedia article on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons:

The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain:

the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Roger V.
  • 20,106
  • 3
  • 39
  • 114
0

A different angle:

US can pressure South Korea to stop developing nukes.

US cannot pressure Israel to stop developing nukes (without losing too much).

Politically it's often not advised to propose actions that the country cannot really do as it shows the weakness. No confrontation - no proof of weakness.

Ark-kun
  • 117
  • 2