I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail.

Like obviously no matter the country, if you want to build weapons offshore in their territory you probably need permission.

▲

hearsathought 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> I will say that the "in/on US territory" piece is a very key detail.

That's the point. South korea is not allowed to build nuclear submarines in their own territory. They lack the sovereignty to do it. The US won't give them permission to build one on their own.

But you probably knew this and your comment is meant to distract.

▲

mmooss 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

cookingmyserver 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

hearsathought 14 hours ago | parent [-]

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

Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them?

Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US.

▲

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Are you being intentionally dense? Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them?

They actually could. This has been an ongoing discussion in South Korean politics for years. Nuclear Submarine shipbuilding is a large undertaking and it requires a lot of security to prevent sabotage in ways that other types of shipbuilding just don't have to put up with. So it is in many ways cheaper and more secure to just rely on the US for nuclear shipbuilding as we already have the infrastructure and we are on the opposite side of the world from any adversaries who would have interest in sabotage.

> Besides, I already replied to your other comment that South korea is not allowed to enrich uranium by the US.

This is not true. There are mutual agreements that set the limits on enriched uranium for military purposes but they are flexible agreements that can be renegotiated or broken off as needed. The US has them with everyone including our allies and our adversaries. It's essentially just a tool to say "hey you need to discuss this publicly within your country first before you can change it". Nothing more or less.

▲

cookingmyserver 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, I am not being dense. From your continued lack of citations I am starting to assume there is no law stopping the RoK from enriching uranium (though I have been trying to find one). Uranium enrichment facilities are expensive. If you have a partner nation who is willing to sell you the enriched uranium that just makes sense. Again, it being the property of another nation, they have the right to judge who should have access it it and what they might do with it. If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could. They don't have an urgent reason to. Further they don't have any deposits of any uranium to begin with so they would still need to partner with another nation anyways, so I ask you - Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities?

	▲	hearsathought 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> No, I am not being dense. Yes you are. An easy tell is "citation needed". > there is no law Another tell. > If RoK wanted to spend a percentage of their GDP on enrichment facilities they could And they have in the past. Guess who shut that down? > They don't have an urgent reason to. South korea is surrounded by 3 nuclear powers ( north korea, china, russia ) and militarily occupied by another nuclear power and yet, they have no urgent reason to? Good one. > Why would RoK want their own enrichment facilities? This is just absurd. Your questions answer themselves. And it's obvious you already know the answers but just are trying to distract. You keep googling and I'll look for the citations. Okay buddy?

▲

IncreasePosts 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why wouldn't they be building it in their own territory if nobody was stopping them?

Because they don't have the facilities to build a nuclear sub, and America does, since America has built over 200+ nuclear submarines in the past?

Building a nuclear sub, and fueling it, are two separate things.