Nuclear redeployment continues to be debated policy option in Seoul as North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats aggravate. However, as this article finds, there are two major gaps in current discussions: lack in actual cost estimation and overreliance on a NATOstyle ‘permanent redeployment’ model. In light of President Trump’s transactional approach to alliances, strategic priority on China, and delays in nuclear modernization, this study argues that ‘flexible redeployment’ can be a more viable - if not the only - alternative, which involves building infrastructure for temporary stationing rather than permanent basing. The paper presents detailed cost estimations for two flexible redeployment options of B61-12s at Kunsan Air Base, distinguishable by the delivery platforms: an F-35A-based option ($630 million~$737 million) and bomber-based option ($143 million~$412 million). The study concludes that the price tag is markedly cheaper than permanent redeployment. While flexible option raises some strategic questions and risks for Seoul, this study argues that the option can ensure continuity of extended deterrence under Trump 2.0 at relatively marginal cost.