I believe that's accurate. SK depends on the US for its security, and also generally is a memeber of the US-led order and coordinates with it. The spread of high-value miltiary technologies is limited to maintain secrecy and the US-led order's technological advantage.

Countries like SK seem to let the US do the heavy lifting, including fighting major wars with them and for them, and in return they give the US considerable influence over international relations and military affairs.

That's just not true? South Korean ministers have been discussing building nuclear submarines domestically long before this current agreement.

And the US has an agreement with South Korea that limits domestic production of fissile material for military uses but it's a mutual agreement that we have with a bunch of countries (including China) and is essentially always renegotiable as situations change. Essentially it's just an explicit agreement of how much material a given country intends on producing for the purposes of requiring public political discussions domestically before ramping up production.

That is all very much a flexible situation and the US doesn't have any actual power to legitimately stop South Korea from manufacturing domestic nuclear reactors for military purposes.

Citation needed. I am unable to find any treaty that prevents the RoK from building nuclear submarines on their own territory.

> Korea is an American suzerainty. Not vassal. Similar to North Korea:China.

That's why north korea has nukes? South Korea:US is not analogous to North Korea:China. Neither is Pakistan:China analogous to South Korea:US. If you analogy held, south korea would be a nuclear power.

Stop commenting on things you know nothing about. Honestly, do you think you are an expert in every geopolitical topic?

America is doing South Korea a favor. It could ratchet sanctions (see: Iran) and ravage SK’s position and economic power on the global stage without its sign-off.

> Or maybe Korea could be like India...and not be part of it

Sure. That comes with costs. Cost that may not make sense for Korea, which is a defense exporter globally and within the American-led Pacific alliance.

(Operating a nuclear shipyard and supply chain is incredibly expensive. It's would also be a high-value target for Pyongynag.)

> your native country

Is this a troll account? (EDIT: 4 months old. Peeked through comment history. All flamebait and racism. Flagged.)

> a loophole seoul doesn't need

You're using the word "need" ambiguously. It's a loophole Seoul benefits from. It gets the benefits of being an NPT signatory and alliance member. And it gets nuclear submarines.

We can debate the costs and benefits. But Seoul wasn't coerced into building a nuclear submarine. Put plainly, it's unclear what security benefits it gets from one given it doesn't project into blue waters.

> You act like america is doing korea a favor

Within narrow confines, it is. Within broader confines, it's acting as the senior security partner. That obviously involves a cession of sovereignty. Same goes for Pakistan vis-a-vis China, or Belarus with Russia.

> The US won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own. Want to try again?

190 nations have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This includes China, so the very US vs China premise here is misplaced.

[The US, UK, France, Russia, China and 185 other countries] won't allow south korea to enrich uranium on their own