North Korea’s Nuclear Law: Dangerous Escalation

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un Addressing KPA Assembly

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea’s new law on nuclear forces has declared the country a State with Nuclear Weapons, outlined the mission and conditions of use of nuclear weapons and declared that DPRK will never give up the same virtually negating de-nulcearisation.

This is a dangerous portend with concerns over nuclear security of the Korean Peninsula as well as East Asia in general and nuclear proliferation

Here is an overview of what happened, why and the way ahead -

On September 09, North Korea’s state media agency, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) outlined the country’s nuclear doctrine proclaiming itself as a state with nuclear weapons.

The Law gave primacy to nuclear weapons for defending “the sovereignty, territorial integrity and fundamental interests of the state, preventing a war on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia and ensuring the strategic stability of the world”.

Main Elements of Law on Nuclear Forces

The Mission of Nuclear Forces was to “be a main force of the state defence which safeguards the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and the lives and safety of the people from outside military threat, aggression and attack”.

Deterrence was said to be the main function of the nuclear forces of the DPRK or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as North Korea is officially known.

The main mission is, “to deter a war by making hostile forces have a clear understanding of the fact that the military confrontation with the DPRK brings about ruin and give up attempts at aggression and attack”.

Nuclear weapons are to be used as the last resort to cope with outside aggression and attack seriously threatening the security of the country and the people as per the Law.

The conditions for the use of nuclear weapons arespecified as follows:-

1. In case an attack by nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction was launched or drew near is judged

2. In case a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by hostile forces on the state leadership and the command organization of the state's nuclear forces was launched or drew near is judged

3. In case a fatal military attack against important strategic objects of the state was launched or drew near is judged

4. In case the need for operation for preventing the expansion and protraction of a war and taking the initiative in the war in contingency is inevitably raised.

5. In other case an inevitable situation in which it is compelled to correspond with catastrophic crisis to the existence of the state and safety of the people by only nuclear weapons is created.

Key Risks of the Law

The risky element of the law is the phrase “or drew near is judged,” that is an assessment by the North Korean leadership that a nuclear or non nuclear attack was imminent either on the state, the leadership or strategic objects.

What are the capabilities, the processes and the measures available to North Korea that can make an assertion that such a strike was likely. This could be a subjective assessment by the top leadership frequently leading to a pre-emptive launch.

Other Facets of the Law

Other facets of the law including maintaining regular readiness of nuclear forces, their safe maintenance and management and protection of the nuclear force.

The Law also authorised the government to upgrade and beef up nuclear forces, “in a qualitative and quantitative way in response to it”.

In a possible signal to the United States to avoid deploying nuclear weapons in South Korea, the Law stated that nuclear weapons would not be deployed “in the territory of other countries nor share them and not transfer nuclear weapons, technology and equipment concerned and weapon-grade nuclear substances”.

Kim Jong Un Justification of Law on Nuclear Forces

On September 10, the KCNA also outlined Policy Speech of Comrade Kim Jong un at Seventh Session of the 14th SPA of DPRK.

A major portion of the speech was devoted to employment of nuclear forces.

Kim Jong un proclaimed that the country has come to possess by law a deterrent for defending the state.

He outlined rationale of development of nuclear weapons as a means of “containment and ultimate weapon that our Republic, which from the early days of its birth had been under the nuclear threat by the United States”

He claimed that the ultimate objective of the, “United States …….is to overthrow our government some day by inducing us to abandon the nuclear weapons and further give up our capability of exercising the right to self-defence or by making the capability inferior to its own”.

On sanctions he said, “Let them impose sanctions for 100, nay 1 000 days or even ten or 100 years,” and said that, “we can never give up the nuclear weapons however harsh the circumstances are in the political and military situations the United States has created on the Korean peninsula and moreover as we have to contain the United States, our nuclear enemy state, in a far-sighted way”.

Kim Jong Un claimed that, “legalization of the policy of the nuclear forces in accordance with the unanimous desire and iron will of all the people…” and said, “With this, the position of our state as a nuclear nation has become irreversible”.

Targeting the government of South Korea led by conservative President Yoon Suk yeol Kim claimed that Seoul is stepping up, “dangerous military manoeuvrings and modernization of armaments which further aggravate the military tension in the region”.

Dangerous Portends

Given the way North Korea has clandestinely acquired nuclear weapons, the mission and role of these and manner of employment denotes a pre-emptive strike which could be undertaken by an irrational leadership perceiving a threat to regime survival.

The variety of types of delivery systems claimed including hypersonic and tactical missile is another dangerous portend.

A tactical nuclear missile if launched in a populated area could cause immeasurable damage and harm.

What should be done?

North Korean leader Kim Jong un has categorically stated that the country will not give up nuclear weapons thus virtually ruling out denuclearisation which has been a lofty goal of the United States and others.

Clearly the strategy for denuclearisation adopted by the United States whether step by step or all or nothing of President Obama and Trump respectively has failed.

The Biden administration has for the past 20 months failed to take any significant initiative towards denuclearisation.

The options today could be limited to capping North Korean nuclear and missile capability which appears to be a non starter for now requiring coordination between the three major powers – United States, China and Russia.

While pursuing the above option, the best case scenario appears to be ensure that North Korea is not able to transfer the knowhow to other states waiting to acquire just such a capability.