North Korea's clever nuclear strategy

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un


Internationally operated detectors based in South Korea picked up a magnitude 5 tremor in the earth on Monday which appears to have been caused by a small nuclear device detonated on the northern side of the tense 38th parallel.

The North Koreans issued warnings of a possible test for several weeks beforehand but the event has nevertheless stirred worried activity in South Korea and Japan, and caught observer nations off guard. Which is probably what Pyongyang intended.

There are two things for certain in North Korea: that they will continue a well-rehearsed charade of appearing unpredictable by launching missiles and detonating crude nuclear devices, and that when they do the West will predictably sit up, take notice, and “strongly condemn” them.

After the latest test, which appears to be larger than the previous two, the United Nations issued another toothless response denouncing the North Korean belligerency.

South Korea, Japan, and China each have new leaders this year so the hermetic North Korea’s will provide useful litmus tests for the fresh heads of state.

It is hard to know what to meaningfully do about such provocations as there is a fine line between too little pressure and too much on the Korean peninsula.

A real 'nuclear option'

The North Koreans are extremely adept at playing the role of the rogue state but never push their actions far enough to risk outright military intervention. Bringing war to the region would probably prove destructive for both Koreas.

The United States and South Korea have invested vast sums of money to ensure the safety of the more docile south. Thousands of US troops are permanently stationed in bases close to Seoul and the Demilitarised Zone, and American warships make regular visits.

However, the fact remains that North Korea’s real "nuclear option" is actually their conventional armed forces. Satellite imagery over the so-called “Demilitarised Zone” has revealed one of the most heavily weaponised regions on the globe.

With their conventional assets only, it has been conservatively estimated that any conflict with the North would result in almost complete destruction of Seoul. The two Koreas are still officially at war, but apart from the occasional belligerent salvo from the North, hostilities have not been triggered in decades.

North Korea’s strategy for survival is complex but depends on one key aspect. It may appear a weak state with few resources, and their unpredictablity is certainly a practised manoeuvre, but threatening the world with nuclear weapons is probably not the hand-wringing danger it may first appear.

The nuclear weapons threat is very dangerous and clearly real. Crude or not, they ensure the international community always returns to the negotiating table.

But there is an important difference between detonating a nuclear device and actually having the capability to deliver it to a target. Just blowing up a few bombs underground does not mean the North Koreans can level Seoul or place a device on Toyko or Los Angeles.

The December 2012 launch of a satellite by Pyongyang may indicate advancing intercontinental ballistic missile technology suitable for arming with a nuclear device. Yet the rocket test itself was messy and the satellite soon fell out of orbit.

So even if the North possesses a reliable nuclear weapon – a dubious claim no matter how many officials try to confirm otherwise – mounting it onto an equally unreliable rocket system would be a risky move not even the regime would be likely to make.

It is the long and twisting process of attaining a capable nuclear device that is Pyongyang’s real goal.

Pyongyang's intelligent strategy

If North Korea truly did have a deliverable nuclear weapon, then the rhetoric from the West would be much more vitriolic and hawkish than it is. Removing the threat would be a very high priority, and military means would definitely be on the table.

Such a device would provide the perfect cassus belli to resolve the problem once and for all. Obviously, this would not be good for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his government.

Pyongyang would much prefer to continue getting the constant flow of aid from Western nations which try to convince the rogue regime with food and money to halt its dangerous quest for nuclear weapons.

So far, this deft geopolitical dance has tamed the far more powerful Western nations, convincing them to treat North Korea as an equal on the world stage.

Why would Pyongyang want to give up such prestige by taking the foolish step of creating a deliverable and reliable nuclear weapon that would only encourage attack?

Right now, the stages of the lengthy nuclear development path are much more lucrative and politically stabilising than actually having a ready-to-launch weapon.

Nathan Smith has a Bachelor of Communications in Journalism from Massey University and has studied international relations and conflict

3 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

3 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

I disagree with your presumption that the west would go to war if n Korea developed a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuke warhead. As you correctly point out, n Korea has Seoul hostage with its conventional weaponry stationed near the dmz. This makes it impossible to attack n Korea without having Seoul destroyed. Therefore, even if the n Koreans develop an intercontinental missile (which they are actively working on through their missile test launches), the west would not move to attack militarily unless n Korea attacked first.

  • 0
  • 0


  • 0
  • 0

The statement that NK conventional artillery etc could destroy/level Seoul is pretty much false - this is leaving out the possibility of them becoming competent enough to be able to nuke the city.

The only artillery with sufficient range to reach out the 55km to Seoul is their 170mm 'Koksan’ of which they have very few and have even fewer firing sites for. None of their short-range tactical rocket artillery has the range to reach even the outskirts of Seoul.

This leaves their long range rockets of the SCUD (500km range), improved SCUD/TAPEDONG(1,000+km range), FROG (70km) and SCARAB (120km) types. None of these have particularly large payloads when used to deliver explosives. Unless used for nuclear or chemical attacks they too are going to be ineffective at "the destruction of Seoul". The use of these type missles both risks being mistaken for nuclear attacks and they are also vulnerable to interception from the various ABM defences deployed by the US and ROK.

Effectively Seoul is not held hostage to attack from conventional weapons, but to unconvential ones - nuclear or chemical. Regardless of how nutty the North Korean leadership is, I think they recognise that the use of either of these would mean the end of them and their nation. The stand-off will continue for some time yet I suspect.

  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7327 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9211 0.0000 0.00%
EUR 0.6140 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.5434 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 5.7285 0.0000 0.00%
JPY 82.1000 0.0000 0.00%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1293.3 6.130 2017-09-22T00:
Oil Brent 56.4 0.420 2017-09-22T00:
Oil Nymex 50.7 0.110 2017-09-22T00:
Silver Index 16.9 -0.034 2017-09-22T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7795.4 7814.8 7795.4 0.25%
NASDAQ 6401.4 6429.5 6422.7 0.07%
DAX 12569.7 12646.6 12600.0 -0.06%
DJI 22334.1 22364.3 22359.2 -0.04%
FTSE 7263.9 7320.3 7263.9 0.64%
HKSE 27949.8 27960.9 28110.3 -0.82%
NI225 20413.6 20417.1 20347.5 -0.25%
ASX 5655.4 5688.2 5655.4 0.47%