An International Legal Review of Nuclear Targeting Debates: Issues and Implications for Enhancing Integrated Deterrence in the U.S.-ROK Alliance

In the United States, which faces the challenge of dealing with two nuclear powers, Russia and China, there is an active debate over strategic considerations regarding whether to target not only military objectives but also civilian facilities, including cities, and national strategic infrastructure. Discussions on the adjustment of target prioritization are also intensifying. Such considerations are not limited to the United States, which provides a nuclear umbrella to its allies. For the U.S.-ROK alliance, where deterrence against North Korea’s advanced nuclear capabilities is essential to counter its attempts at alliance decoupling, nuclear targeting is also a crucial issue. Securing the effectiveness of extended deterrence and the conventional deterrent capabilities of the Korea Massive Punishment & Retaliation (KMPR) demands strategic deliberations and an international legal examination of targeting policies. To ensure the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence within the security environment of the Korean Peninsula, it is essential to secure flexibility in nuclear targeting strategies by establishing a legal framework that allows for the selective application of countervalue targeting policies. To this end, various countries have adopted diverse exit strategies. For Republic of Korea, as a party to the 1977 Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, it would be advisable to make a reservation regarding the provisions on belligerent reprisal.