Seoul recently asked Washington to discuss the timing of the transfer of wartime operational control with North Korea’s escalated nuclear threats as a “crucial condition,” the Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

“Consultations are underway between the allies after we proposed as a crucial condition that we check the preparations for the OPCON transfer with North Korea’s nuclear issue that worsened earlier this year,” the ministry said in a press release.

The release came after a news report said that Seoul requested another delay in the transfer planned for December 2015.

“I know that (delay) has been proposed by the South Korean government, and we are looking at that, working with the South Korean government,” a top Washington official told Yonhap News Agency.

Initially scheduled for April 2012, the transfer was first delayed to the end of 2015 in June 2010 amid Pyongyang’s continuing provocations, including the torpedoing of the South Korean corvette Cheonan that killed 46 sailors.

The allies have since been preparing for the transfer, with Seoul taking a leading role in regular combined war drills. But Pyongyang’s latest saber-rattling has raised concerns over whether the South is fully ready to retake the OPCON.

Last December, the North successfully launched a long-range rocket, which experts presumed had a range of some 10,000 kilometers. In February, it conducted a third underground nuclear test.

From March and April, the communist state spewed out a barrage of belligerent statements that threatened nuclear strikes on the U.S. and its allies including South Korea and Japan.

“From earlier this year, North Korea’s threats have continued. We cannot help factoring in these and inter-Korean relations (with regard to the timing of the OPCON transfer),” a senior Seoul official told media, declining to be named.

A high-ranking Cheong Wa Dae official said the Defense Ministry’s position is in line with the current security situation upon North Korea’s barrage of threats earlier this year, which was also reflected in the comments made during May’s summit talks between President Park Geun-hye and U.S. President Barack Obama.

“(Our suggestion) to discuss the matter has been delivered (to the U.S. side),” said the official, wishing to remain anonymous.

Park had said that while the wartime operational control transfer should be carried out, the two sides should go in a direction to reinforce the combined strength of the forces of South Korea and the U.S.

Under the plan for the 2015 transfer, the allies are to start assessing Seoul’s readiness during their combined Key Resolve command post exercise in March next year and the Ulchi Freedom Guardian drills in August. The final check on the South’s capabilities is to come in August 2015.

But this timeframe would change should the allies agree to another delay.

Given the robust 60-year alliance, observers said Washington could positively consider the request. But they cautioned the financially strained U.S. government could demand something in return such as an increase in Seoul’s share of the cost for the upkeep of 28,500 U.S. troops on the peninsula.

The allies are currently in negotiations over the so-called burden-sharing cost as the current Special Measures Agreement governing it expires at the end of this year. Washington has reportedly demanded Seoul increase its share to 50 percent from the current 42 percent.

The allies agreed in 2007 to transfer wartime operational control in April 2012 as the Roh Moo-hyun administration had sought to enhance Korea’s military self-reliance and “balance” the alliance with the U.S.

But amid continuing provocations by the North, his successor Lee Myung-bak and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed in June 2010 to delay the plan to the end of 2015.

Opponents argue Seoul was not yet capable of leading combat operations in terms of military equipment, strategies and experience. They point particularly to South Korea’s heavy reliance on U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets.

They also say the transfer would result in a weakening of U.S. security commitment to the peninsula, noting that Washington could more freely deploy its troops outside the peninsula under the name of strategic flexibility.

Proponents for the transfer said the preparations should proceed as planned, arguing that Seoul had relied too heavily on Washington for peninsular defense for too long, and that whether its military could stand on its own was a matter of national pride.

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)