Nuclear armament has long since been a friction point for international relations for good reason; a nuclear war would undoubtedly ruin much of the planet and change our trajectory dramatically as a human race. In a recent development, North Korea has disregarded all demands from the United States and continued to test nuclear arms in addition to its recent “satellite” test, demonstrating its improved capability of a farther reaching means to attack the west from the point of view of the US. These actions all come without any reigning in by North Korea’s stronger ally, China. While China sits idle, South Korea, who remains free of nuclear arms, grows increasingly nervous as a population. This is a rational concern  as it resides in a tumultuous region with little self-reliance in terms of military capabilities. It relies on the US to protect it from the unpredictable north, but a majority in the south would prefer having some sort of nuclear program to even the playing field strictly for the sake of defense, but do not want to risk a hit to its heavy export reliant economy if embargoes are placed. On the opposite side, some South Koreans argue the trend to deescalate nuclear arms dependence should start in their country. I would argue the opposite, because in order to make substantial changes to the world as a whole, starting with the leaders decreases the desire for smaller powers like South Korea to acquire self reliance militarily. In order for the US to abandon its nuclear program, however, the demand would have to be decreased (i.e. North Korea would have to comply with the demands to dissolve its nuclear program) which does not look promising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/asia/south-korea-nuclear-program-north.html