South Korea's nuclear-powered submarine program poses no proliferation concerns: IAEA chief
Vienna, June 8
South Korea's planned nuclear-powered submarine program should not raise proliferation concerns, given that a solid and specific safeguards arrangement will be concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency's chief said Monday.
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi noted Seoul and the IAEA have already begun such discussions, though they are still in a preliminary stage, due largely to the lack of specific details for Seoul's envisioned submarine program, Yonhap news agency reported.
"As you know, in order to do that (build nuclear-powered submarines), countries that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ... have to notify the IAEA, and for this to happen, there has to be a special arrangement with the IAEA," Grossi told a press conference here in Vienna.
"So we are in the face of the kickoff ... of that process, which is a highly technical process where our safeguards experts meet with Korean experts, and they start looking at what will be necessary," he added.
His remarks come as South Korea is pushing to build conventionally armed, nuclear-propelled submarines following security agreements reached in a summit between President Lee Jae Myung and US President Donald Trump in October.
"Insofar as you have a very solid agreement with the IAEA, there shouldn't be any proliferation concerns," Grossi said, when asked if the IAEA had any proliferation concerns over Seoul's proposed submarine program.
Grossi noted that the main technical challenge is ensuring accountability for nuclear material once it is loaded into submarines, which can operate underwater for extended periods outside routine inspection.
"So we need to find technical ways to ensure that the amount of uranium that left the harbour is the same when it comes to," the chief said. "It is going to take a long time precisely to ensure that there is no proliferation."
Grossi stressed that discussions between Seoul and the IAEA are at a preliminary stage, noting that South Korea has not yet made final decisions on the type of technology or operational modalities involved in the project.
"This must be very specific because it will depend on the type of submarines that you are going to be building, how they are going to be designed, what kind of fuel there is going to be on it, what kind of infrastructure onshore you're going to have," he said.
According to the road map for the program announced by Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back last month, the envisioned submarines will use low-enriched uranium enriched to less than 20 per cent for fuel. Nuclear weapons typically use uranium enriched to more than 90 per cent.
The Seoul government plans to launch the first nuclear-powered submarine in the mid-2030s and push ahead with development to enter operational service before 2040.
Following the October summit, Seoul and Washington released a joint fact sheet, where the US committed to supporting processes that would lead to Seoul's nuclear-propelled submarine construction, as well as uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing for civilian use.
After some delays, the two nations launched talks last week to discuss the implementation of these security initiatives.
— IANS
Reader Comments
As an Indian, I find this very reassuring. India has always maintained that nuclear technology for peaceful purposes like propulsion should not be conflated with weapons. South Korea's approach—using low-enriched uranium below 20%—is exactly what we advocate for. The IAEA's technical oversight is key here, and I hope similar trust is extended to other developing nations with clean energy ambitions.
Honestly, the US supporting South Korea's enrichment and reprocessing is a big shift. India should take note—we have been denied similar technology transfers for decades due to 'non-proliferation' concerns. If South Korea can get this deal, why can't India, given our impeccable non-proliferation record? The geopolitical chessboard is very selective it seems.
Grossi's remarks make sense from a technical perspective, but the devil is in the details. Accounting for nuclear material on submarines that are underwater for months is no joke. I'm curious how the IAEA plans to implement 'safeguards by design' here. South Korea is a trusted partner, but this sets a precedent that other nations might try to exploit. Just saying.
The timeline of mid-2030s to 2040 seems very ambitious. Nuclear propulsion is not easy—just look at the challenges faced by France and the UK. But South Korea has a strong shipbuilding industry and nuclear power expertise, so if anyone can pull it off, it's them. However, I hope the environmental impact assessments for operating such submarines in the Indo-Pacific are given due importance. 🌊
R Rohit P IAEA We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.