This study examines the alliance dilemma in the US-South Korea relationship, characterized as a patron state fearing entrapment and a client state fearing abandonment. We argue that a patron’s support for allied nuclearization is determined by the costs of extended deterrence and the client’s independent nuclear capabilities. We predict that a patron favors gradually withdrawing extended deterrence if the costs are high and the client lacks an independent nuclear deterrent. Two survey experiments with South Carolina voters support this hypothesis. Study 1 found that higher extended deterrence costs increased support for South Korea’s nuclearization without affecting support for the US’ immediate withdrawal of extended deterrence, while Study 2 showed increased support when respondents were informed of direct US security threats.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: