Business & Economics
U.S.–ROK Fact Sheet Green-Lights Seoul’s Nuclear-Powered Submarines in $350 Bn Deal
On 14 Nov 2025 Washington and Seoul issued a joint fact sheet that, for the first time, authorizes South Korea to build nuclear-powered attack submarines while tying the move to a $350 billion Korean investment package and a cut of U.S. tariffs to 15 percent.
Focusing Facts
- Fact sheet commits US$150 bn to U.S. shipyards and another US$200 bn to wider U.S. industries in exchange for tariff relief to 15 %.
- South Korea aims to field at least four 5,000-ton conventionally armed SSNs by the mid-2030s, according to Yonhap and defense minister Ahn Gyu-back.
- Chinese Ambassador Dai Bing formally objected on 14 Nov 2025, warning the cooperation undermines regional stability and the global non-proliferation regime.
Context
When the U.S. transferred Polaris missile technology to Britain in 1958, and again with the 2021 AUKUS nuclear-sub pact for Australia, it cracked open precedents meant to ring-fence naval nuclear propulsion; the 2025 extension to South Korea is the third fissure. It signals a deeper trend: Washington now trades its most sensitive technology for allied industrial investment and burden-sharing as China’s navy and North Korea’s arsenal expand. The decision accelerates an under-sea arms race already prompting Japanese debates on SSNs and spurring Beijing to counter-deploy. Over a 100-year arc this could normalise nuclear latency among middling powers, strain the NPT verification system built in 1970, and lock Northeast Asia into a high-technology "cold peace"—paralleling how the Dreadnought race of 1906 planted seeds for wider conflict even while deterring immediate war.
Perspectives
South Korean government-aligned and Western mainstream outlets
e.g., Al Jazeera Online, Newsweek, CNA — Present the US-ROK nuclear-submarine pact as a landmark boost to South Korea’s security, industry and alliance credibility, stressing the vessels will deter Pyongyang and deepen economic ties. Celebrate the Lee-Trump deal while skimming over proliferation worries, budget strains and the still-uncertain build plan, mirroring Seoul and Washington’s incentive to paint the agreement as an unalloyed success.
Chinese diplomatic and state-linked voices quoted in Korean media
e.g., remarks by Ambassador Dai in The Korea Times — Warn that Seoul’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines endangers regional stability and undermines the global non-proliferation regime, urging Korea to proceed with extreme caution. By highlighting worst-case security fallout, Beijing seeks to deter deeper US-Korea military cooperation and safeguard its strategic position, so the alarm may be amplified for political leverage.
South Korean progressive policy critics
e.g., Hankyoreh interview with former FM Song Min-soon — Question the submarine push as an over-ambitious, costly move and advocate instead for developing uranium-enrichment ‘nuclear latency’ to lessen dependence on the US without provoking neighbors. Long-standing skepticism of militarization and alliance entanglement may lead them to underplay the deterrent value of nuclear-powered subs and overstate the feasibility of an enrichment-only path.