North Korea

Despite international sanctions and condemnation, North Korea continues to press ahead on perfecting its ‘treasured sword:’ referred to the country’s nuclear arsenal. With several nuclear device and delivery system tests, North Korea has managed to enhance its nuclear deterrent both quantitatively and qualitatively in defiance of several UN Security Council resolutions. It has achieved not only an operational nuclear weapons capability but also made it a credible one. The increasing potency of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent has doubled the concerns of South Korea and Japan and has also become ‘a direct threat’ and a ‘real and clear danger’ for the United States (US). As a result, the country has evolved into a problem of deterrence, rather than just a matter of denuclearisation or non-proliferation. To comprehend the progress and its implications, it is imperative to assess the major milestones North Korea has achieved.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been making strenuous efforts to enhance its nuclear capability for regime survivability and state security. Under the leadership of Kim Jong-Un, it has been actively pursuing advancements in nuclear technology, encompassing the miniaturisation and diversification of delivery systems. In 2013, Kim announced his ‘Byungjin Policy’ aimed at developing his country’s economy and nuclear force in parallel, transitioning from the previous Kim Jong-il’s ‘Songun Policy,’ which prioritised military build-up. Instead, the Byungjin Policy led to reforms in Agriculture and Labour to support economic growth. It also renewed focus on the development of a nuclear deterrent.

However, some voices question the credibility of North Korea’s nuclear deterrent; particularly, the ability to field operational warheads delivered by missiles. Though the uncertainty looms owing to the unavailability of public information, there have been several demonstrations and public statements that indicate its ability to field its nuclear weapons. DPRK conducted its fifth nuclear device test on 9 September 2016, with an estimated yield of 15 to 25 kilotons. The successful test demonstrated the country’s ability to develop a miniaturized warhead design that could be mounted on ballistic missiles. In its sixth nuclear test in 2017, North Korea claimed to have tested a thermonuclear device, further showcasing its advancements in nuclear technology. Experts have drawn different conclusions from the 120-kiloton yield of the test, with some suggesting that it indicated a significant advancement in North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, while others argued that the yield was inflated and the test itself may have been a failure. However, most of them believed that Pyongyang had mastered developing a boosted-fission device and had achieved the capability of miniaturisation. Moreover, the 2017 US Defence Intelligence Agency’s report and the 2021 UN Panel of Experts report noted that North Korea had attained the capability of delivering nuclear weapons on missiles ranging from Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) to Intercontinental-Range Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). These assertions imply that it has gained the capability of delivering nuclear warheads.

Similarly, North Korea has also made remarkable progress in both its cruise and ballistic missile force. North Korean missiles demonstrate critical features including precision, potency, mobility, higher ranges and manoeuvrability. Pyongyang has been adopting solid propellants and satellite-guided systems for its missiles that constitute a serious threat to South Korea, US assets on the Peninsula, and Japan. Regarding ICBMs, North Korea has already successfully launched liquid propellant, road-mobile Hwasong-14, and Hwasong-15 capable of striking the US mainland, and it recently intensified the threat to the US by test-firing its latest solid propellant Hwasong-18 ICBM. The maintenance of solid-propellant ICBMs is simpler owing to fewer mechanical components, and they can be made operational within a shorter time frame. Moreover, solid propellants also allow for the storage of missiles in a canisterized manner, mated with a nuclear warhead, following its induction. North Korea has also been developing several small and long-range Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). Recently, it also conducted the first test-launches of two nuclear-capable Submarine-Launched Cruise Missiles (SLCMs) with ranges of 1500 kilometres and a nuclear-capable ‘Underwater Unmanned Vehicle’ (UUV), named Haeli. These assets provide North Korea with second-strike capability, allowing the country to maintain and enhance the security and survivability of its nuclear weapons.

Given these developments, North Korea’s nuclear capacity cannot be underestimated. Although this has bolstered the country’s national security, it has raised the threat spectre for regional countries and the US, and has disrupted the balance of power, at least at the regional level. The latter is forcing Japan to enhance its defence capabilities and the South to either seek nuclear weapons or greater US extended deterrence measures.

Hence, North Korea’s nuclear deterrent modernisation conveys four key messages. First, it signals the nearly limited efficacy of military options with the US and its allies to denuclearise the North. Second, the country’s advanced missiles have rendered the US security assurances to allies, in terms of combined exercises and provisioning of anti-ballistic missile systems, largely insufficent. Third, perceived US inability to guarantee the security of the South runs the risk of horizontal nuclear proliferation. Fourth, Western sanctions have failed in containing North Korea’s motivation or ability to reinforce its nuclear deterrent. Therefore, both the US and its allies must prioritise diplomatic solutions rather than resorting to a forceful approach. The Biden-⁠Harris Administration needs to revive the stalled engagements with North Korea, initiated by former US President Donald Trump in 2018, towards finding concrete solutions for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

Moiz Khan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »