North Korea has historically been perceived as a threat to the West and her interests in Asia, more so in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy categorizes North Korea as a key security threat in the same rank as Iran, Russia, and China (Cordesman, 2018) . Indeed, it is not hard to see why this is the case. North Korea remains the only avowed communist Stalinist regime in the world and has over the years engaged in numerous outlaw actions including in recent years the testing of nuclear and hydrogen bombs (European Peoples Party, 2017). For Americans, this threat is axiomatic given the numerous bellicose statements Pyongyang has made against the United States and her allies over the years. For instance, in 1994, Pyongyang threatened to turn South Korea into ‘a sea of fire’ and in 2002 responded to its categorization as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ by the Bush Administration with promises to ‘mercilessly wipe out the aggressors.’ Rhetoric notwithstanding, the threat posed by a state is backed by substantive capabilities (Eleanor, 2018). Given the capabilities North Korea has amassed over the years and its geopolitical importance, this paper contends that the Hermit Kingdom poses an existential threat to the United States and her allies.
Particularly, the tensions between the North Korea, on the one hand, and the US and her allies, on the other hand, are not new and have characterized American Foreign Policy in the region since the end of the Korean War (Amouzoul, 2018). The military agreement between the United States and Seoul was primarily based on the threat posed by Soviet-allied North Korea (Brookings, 2018). Pyongyang has historically been opposed to American military presence in the Korean peninsula, which partly explains her close alliance with key American enemies like Russia and China while having strained relations with key western allies like Japan and South Korea. Equally important, North Korea deems herself the custodian of Korean culture and racial purity and has adopted an ideology of self-sufficiency, which in effect means a degree of isolation from the rest of the world (Morag, 2015). Confronted with a diametrically different worldview and convinced of an imminent security threat from regional and global actors, the regime in Pyongyang has over the years embarked on an elaborate nuclear program and military consolidation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
North Korea’s Military Might
Despite North Korea being one of the poorest countries in the world, it has one of the largest armies. Indeed, North Korea has about 1.2 million men and women in uniform (Morag, 2015). The US State Department reports that Pyongyang spends nearly 25% of her GDP on the military. Nonetheless, the country’s economic woes have meant the military is saddled with poorly maintained and aging equipment and faces an acute challenge of poor troop welfare and morale (Morag, 2015). To compensate for these weaknesses, Pyongyang has based her military strategy on asymmetric warfare with an emphasis on long-range artillery and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The North has deployed munitions on its border with the South and has missiles aimed at Seoul and Japan in an effort to deter possible attacks. A 2015 report by the US Department of Defense estimates the North to have over 1,300 aircrafts, 430 combatant vessels, 70 submarines, 4,300 tanks, 5,500 multiple rocket launchers, 2,500 armored vehicles, 250 amphibious vessels and about 300 helicopters (Eleanor, 2018) . After years of seeking the requisite technologies, the North is also thought to have over one thousand missiles of different ranges.
Nuclear Weapons Program
The greatest emphasis of North Korea’s military strategy and certainly what has received most international attention has been her nuclear program. The country has tested numerous different missiles including submarine-launched, short and medium, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (Hanlon, 2005). The exact number of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, however, remains a divisive issue. Some experts put the number at between fifteen and twenty bombs while US intelligence estimates between thirty and sixty bombs. In July and September 2017, the country successfully tested Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, each with the capacity for carrying a large nuclear warhead. Eleanor(2018) estimates the Hwasong-15 ICBM to have a range of up to 13,000 kilometers, meaning it could easily reach US mainland if fired on a flat trajectory.
North Korea nuclear capabilities can only be expected to grow given the capacity of Pyongyang to sustain the program even in the face of harsh international sanctions. For instance, between 2006 and 2009, the North carried out six nuclear tests under the leadership of Kim Jong-il. Similar momentum has been sustained under Kim Jong-un with tests being carried out in 2013, 2016, and 2017 (Hanlon, 2005). With each test, the power of North Korea’s explosions has grown. In the wake of these developments, some commentators have suggested that the US shall have to grow comfortable with North Korea having the capabilities even to target American Mainland (Schiller, 2018). Other scholars have been quick to dismiss, despite efforts by the Trump administration and assurances from Pyongyang, the possibility of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula (Brookings, 2018). As such, it would appear that the long-term security threat posed by North Korea is that of Nuclear weapons.
The bigger threat of Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, however, lies in their impact on the region. South Korea, with its historic rivalries with the North, is unlikely to allow a nuclearized neighbor. Japan, on the other hand, is also unlikely to support a North Korean regime with nuclear capabilities (Morag, 2015). These two economic powerhouses, while remaining within the American security umbrella, are unlikely to continue outsourcing their security to the United States. The likely outcome is the continued nuclearization of the Peninsula and Asia as a whole as other countries seek similar capabilities (Hanlon, 2005). In other words, Pyongyang’s nuclear program can trigger another arms race in Asia similar to the one witnessed during the cold war. Notably, this possibility is even more real now in the wake of emerging American ambivalence to keep her security commitments to countries like Japan and South Korea, an ambivalence exemplified today by what some commentators refer to as the rhetoric of President Donald Trump.
Even more crucially, the North Korean threat has the potential to spill into US relations with other major powers such as China and Russia. China has been the most significant ally of Pyongyang and has on occasion struck down UN resolutions seeking to penalize Pyongyang for her outlaw practices though there appears to be a change of policy towards Pyongyang in recent months (Cordesman, 2018). Nonetheless, China still considers the Hermit kingdom an important strategic ally and is keen to maintain ties. First, China sees Pyongyang as a strategic partner in the face of American containment policy. Indeed, North Korea remains China's most significant ally standing in the way of American economic and to a degree military encirclement. In addition, it is important to underscore that China and Korea have historical ties that bind them together. At the height of the cold war in the 1950s and 1960s, North Korea and China stood side by side with the Soviet Union and were among the most important Asian countries within the Soviet bloc. Also, North Korea and China have cooperated on defense including the production of ballistic missiles in the 1970s (Eleanor, 2018). China is, therefore, keen to ensure continued ties with Pyongyang in light of these historical ties but more importantly in the wake of the current global power configuration. Any policy by the West to undermine the current authoritarian regime in Pyongyang would, therefore, put it in Chinese crosshairs.
Nonetheless, China is not the only key ally of Pyongyang. Moscow has significant ties with North Korea dating back to the 1950s and 1980s (Eleanor, 2018). The two cooperated closely in nuclear technology transfer, and Pyongyang was a regular recipient of Soviet Union aid. Besides Moscow, Pyongyang has ties with Iran, especially in military cooperation and has benefitted from Pakistan technology. As such, it is impossible to rule out the involvement of these countries in the event of perceived American aggression (Eleanor, 2018). A military confrontation to neutralize the North Korea threat would, therefore, easily turn into another Vietnam War with even more dramatic consequences.
Besides nuclear weapons, the North is thought to possess an arsenal of chemical weapons including Sarin, Chlorine, VX nerve agents, mustard, and sulfur. Moreover, it is believed to have the capacity to produce blood, nerve and blister agents, and is estimated to have stockpiles of up to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons. Such toxins can be fired in conventional rockets, missiles, and shells. Despite being party to the Biological Weapons Convention of 1987 that bans production, development, and stockpile of biological weapons and the Geneva Protocol of 1988 that prohibits the use of poisonous asphyxiating gases in warfare, the North is believed to possess biological weapon capabilities (Eleanor, 2018).
Cyber Security
While North Korea is not exactly a technological powerhouse, it has over the years, often with external help, developed cyber-attack capabilities. Many of its cyber-attacks, however, have been in the form of Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS), suggesting a limited degree of sophistication in cyber operations (Eleanor, 2018). The capacity for states to hire hackers and support their work makes Pyongyang a significant security threat (Denning, 2018). Some of her cyber operations have entailed taking advantage of third-country nodes such as China and Malaysia, therefore, boosting her deniability and dodging retribution. The fact that some of the major hacks in recent years like the 2014 Sony Pictures and the South Korean Banks hacks were attributable to North Korea speaks of the country’s growing capabilities.
The 2016 cyber theft of $81 million from the Bangladeshi central bank is yet another evidence of Pyongyang’s growing capabilities. In December 2016, a CSIS report indicated that the North had increased her investment in cyber capabilities for military and political purposes (Cordesman, 2018). After the 2016 Russia cyber-attacks on American elections, many agree that a precedent has been set for North Korea (Denning, 2018). With the threat of economic sanctions unlikely to deter Pyongyang [its economy is largely economically isolated], it might even serve as a proxy for a more advanced technological powerhouse like China (Hern, 2018) . Therefore , the North’s cybersecurity threat spans areas of military, financial, and political concern.
The North Korean threat is also attributable to the collapse of the regime in Pyongyang. Although it has proven well capable of perpetuating itself for the last half a century, there is still a strong possibility of regime failure, especially given the prevailing economic condition within the country and the vagaries of power transfer that characterize authoritarian systems. Such a development would not only plunge the country into political turmoil with significant spillover effects to the region but would also lead to massive refugee crisis for neighboring countries. More significantly, power fragmentation would introduce uncertainties about the future of North nuclear Arsenal which may be easily smuggled into other countries.
Conclusion
North Korea poses a significant threat not just to East Asia but the entire world. In this paper, it has been argued that the rhetoric that characterizes North Korean threats is backed by substantive hard power. The most serious threat emanates from the Country’s nuclear program that threatens to trigger an arms race in the region. Nonetheless, the Hermit Kingdom has chemical and biological weapon production capabilities, a sizable military force, and developed capabilities for cybersecurity attacks. With Pyongyang’s status as a pariah state and the backing of China, ordinary instruments of exerting pressure on states may not work in compelling denuclearization, further compelling the nature of this threat.
References
Amouzoul, M. (2018). Is North Korea threatening peace and global security? GNN Liberia , http://gnnliberia.com/2018/01/26/north-korea-threatening-peace-global-security/.
Brookings. (2018). If North Korea Denuclearizes, What Happens to the US-Korea Alliance? Experts Discuss. The Brookings Institution , https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/08/30/if-north-korea-denuclearizes-what-happens-to-the-u-s-korea-alliance-experts-discuss/.
Cordesman, A. (2018). Looking beyond the nuclear dimension: The Other side of the North Korean threat. Center for Strategic and International Studies , https://www.csis.org/analysis/looking-beyond-nuclear-dimension-other-side-north-korean-threat.
Denning, D. (2018). North Korea’s growing criminal cyberthreat. The Conversation .
Eleanor, A. (2018). North Korea’s Military Capabilities. Council on Foreign Relations , https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-military-capabilities.
European Peoples Party. (2017). North Korea’s actions as the threat to global peace and security. https://www.epp.eu/papers/north-koreas-actions-as-the-threat-to-global-peace-and-security/.
Hanlon, M. (2005). The North Korean nuclear threat. Brookings , https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-north-korean-nuclear-threat/.
Hern, A. (2018). North Korea is a bigger cyber-attack threat than Russia, says expert. The Guardian , https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/26/north-korea-cyber-attack-threat-russia.
Morag, N. (2015). The North Korean threat. Global Security Series , https://www.coloradotech.edu/Media/Default/CTU/documents/resources/CTU_Korea_Backgrounder.pdf.
Schiller, M. (2018). Characterizing the North Korean nuclear missile threat. Rand Corporation .
