Is the World Underestimating the North Korea Threat?

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on June 4, 2024.

This analysis examines Is the World Underestimating the North Korea Threat? in historical and strategic context. It traces how the core developments unfolded, which institutions and actors shaped outcomes, and what those decisions changed on the ground. Rather than repeating headline-level claims, it focuses on concrete mechanisms, constraints, and tradeoffs that explain the trajectory of events. The discussion moves from Key Developments through Strategic Implications to Risk and Uncertainty, then evaluates wider consequences. The goal is to clarify not only what happened, but why these developments still matter for current planning, risk assessment, and policy decisions.

Key Takeaways

An era when serious newspapers ran articles outlining how a DPRK nuclear attack might affect the American homeland.
As you watch this, a small but significant number of experts are sounding the alarm on the DPRK.
Hecker - and published under the no-nonsense title 'Is Kim Jong-Un Preparing for War?' - the article laid out in painstaking detail why the two analysts felt that conflict on the Korean peninsula was now inevitable.
From a mere 40 to 50 warheads, the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses now estimates Pyongyang has between 80 and 90 nukes.
The article is grounded strictly in the source video script and listed references.

Key Developments

An era when serious newspapers ran articles outlining how a DPRK nuclear attack might affect the American homeland. When it seemed Kim Jong-Un's regime constituted the greatest threat to the US and its allies anywhere on Earth. Jump forward to today, and such a view now seems almost quaint. With Russia grinding forwards in Ukraine, Iran near the brink of all-out war with Israel, and China eyeing Taiwan like a shark, the North Korean threat feels more distant than ever. A relic of a bygone time. Yet, such feelings can be deceiving. Yet, such feelings can be deceiving. As you watch this, a small but significant number of experts are sounding the alarm on the DPRK. Rather than recede, they warn that the threat from Pyongyang is only growing stronger. That the next great crisis might emerge not in the Middle East or Europe… but on the Korean peninsula. (TITLE): Rogue Nation For a specialist publication like 38 North, the report released this January was about as close to a blockbuster as it's possible to get. Written by seasoned DPRK experts Robert L. Hecker - and published under the no-nonsense title 'Is Kim Jong-Un Preparing for War?' - the article laid out in painstaking detail why the two analysts felt that conflict on the Korean peninsula was now inevitable. In their words (quote): “The situation on the Korean Peninsula is more dangerous than it has been at any time since early June 1950. That may sound overly dramatic, but we believe that, like his grandfather in 1950, Kim Jong Un has made a strategic decision to go to war.” So big was the impact of this report that it swept around the globe. We covered it ourselves on our weekly Situation Room briefing, where we made a point of noting that while Carlin and Hecker are indeed experts, plenty of other experts disagreed with their apocalyptic conclusion. In the few months since that 38 North essay, though, a few others have stepped forwards to back some of their conclusions. Not many, but enough to make this topic worth revisiting. War on the Rocks, for example, recently carried a piece arguing that (quote): “A crisis in northeast Asia is more likely to start on the Korean Peninsula, not in Taiwan.” The Atlantic Council, meanwhile, recently argued that the North Korean ICBM threat is greater than Congress realizes, and that America is falling behind in its ability to defend against it. But while these articles are all interesting - and somewhat terrifying - they pale next to the real-world evidence that Pyongyang is becoming increasingly dangerous. In just the last few months, the regime's rhetoric and actions have climbed to unhinged heights not seen since the 2017 crisis. The focus of the DPRK's latest threats has mostly been its neighbor, South Korea - a US treaty ally where tens of thousands of American troops are stationed.

Strategic Implications

As you watch this, a small but significant number of experts are sounding the alarm on the DPRK. Rather than recede, they warn that the threat from Pyongyang is only growing stronger. That the next great crisis might emerge not in the Middle East or Europe… but on the Korean peninsula. (TITLE): Rogue Nation For a specialist publication like 38 North, the report released this January was about as close to a blockbuster as it's possible to get. Written by seasoned DPRK experts Robert L. Carlin and Siegfried S. In January, Kim Jong-Un had the constitution changed to name South Korea “number one hostile state.” That same month, he ordered the ministry responsible for Korean reunification to be permanently shuttered, and had the reunification monument in Pyongyang bulldozed into the ground for good measure. While such bombastic actions may seem par for the course for Kim, they represent a sea change in decades of DPRK policy - the official abandonment of reunification as a goal. In its place Kim now declares he plans to (quote): “Completely occupy, subjugate, and reclaim (South Korea) and annex it as a part of the territory of our Republic.” These threatening words have been matched by actions that seem designed to cause anxiety in Seoul. In January alone, the regime tested new underwater attack drones, and fired artillery at Yeonpyeong Island, causing 200 South Koreans to be evacuated. More-recently, May 2nd saw Seoul issue a terror alert for its diplomatic missions, after intelligence suggested North Korea might be plotting an attack against South Korean embassies or consulates in five nearby nations. To be clear, even if the DPRK were to attack a South Korean embassy, it would not be an unprecedented escalation. Back in the 1960s, North Korean commandos carried out a raid on the president's residence, killing 30 people. In the 1980s, Pyongyang bombed a South Korean airliner, killing 115. Closer to our own time, the North shelled Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, killing two South Korean soldiers, and two civilians. In all these cases - and many others we don't have time to list - the death and destruction wrought by Pyongyang failed to spark a new Korean conflict. Awful as renewed violence against the South would be, it is unlikely to escalate into a global crisis. Yet renewed threats against the south are just one aspect of Kim's current behavior that is worrying analysts. Zoom out to the wider geopolitical picture, and it starts to look a whole lot like Pyongyang is becoming a more-active player than it has been in years. (TITLE): Unstable World There's a lot of debate in certain circles right now as to whether we're heading towards - or are already in - a second Cold War. Since it's the sort of topic that would require a whole video, we're not going to weigh up both sides here.

Risk and Uncertainty

Hecker - and published under the no-nonsense title 'Is Kim Jong-Un Preparing for War?' - the article laid out in painstaking detail why the two analysts felt that conflict on the Korean peninsula was now inevitable. In their words (quote): “The situation on the Korean Peninsula is more dangerous than it has been at any time since early June 1950. That may sound overly dramatic, but we believe that, like his grandfather in 1950, Kim Jong Un has made a strategic decision to go to war.” So big was the impact of this report that it swept around the globe. We covered it ourselves on our weekly Situation Room briefing, where we made a point of noting that while Carlin and Hecker are indeed experts, plenty of other experts disagreed with their apocalyptic conclusion. In the few months since that 38 North essay, though, a few others have stepped forwards to back some of their conclusions. Not many, but enough to make this topic worth revisiting. What we will say, though, is that - new Cold War or not - North Korea is certainly acting like one might be underway. Over the past couple of years, Pyongyang has started cozying up to major players in the anti-Western world order. North Korea's blossoming relationship with Russia. Since last summer, Moscow has been turning to Pyongyang to supply it with artillery ammunition. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates at least 10,000 containers have made their way from the DPRK's stockpiles and to Russia's frontlines, consisting of millions of shells. The trade-off has been Russia using its Security Council veto to kill a UN panel tasked with monitoring Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. There are also concerns that, as Foreign Policy put it: “The Kremlin could buck decades of nonproliferation norms and start supplying Pyongyang with sensitive military technology on ballistic missiles and submarines.” But while the Kim-Putin bromance has been big news, Russia isn't the only new ally North Korea is getting close to. This April, Pyongyang's Minister of External Economic Relations appeared in Iran - the first visit by a DPRK official to the Islamic Republic in half a decade. According to the US State Department, the trip's economic focus may have been a smokescreen for “possible missile and nuclear technology cooperation.” In Pyongyang, such technology is certainly developing fast. Although North Korean weapons spent most of the previous decade as the butt of jokes, current DPRK tech is getting worryingly powerful. This spring saw the regime successfully test its new solid-fuel hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Hwasong-16B. Solid fuel missiles are advantageous, because they are easier to move and store, and can be fired with little preparation time. By mastering them, North Korea makes it harder for the US or its allies to detect and destroy their arsenal in the opening minutes of any conflict, thereby increasing Pyongyang's ability to attack American assets.

Outlook

War on the Rocks, for example, recently carried a piece arguing that (quote): “A crisis in northeast Asia is more likely to start on the Korean Peninsula, not in Taiwan.” The Atlantic Council, meanwhile, recently argued that the North Korean ICBM threat is greater than Congress realizes, and that America is falling behind in its ability to defend against it. But while these articles are all interesting - and somewhat terrifying - they pale next to the real-world evidence that Pyongyang is becoming increasingly dangerous. In just the last few months, the regime's rhetoric and actions have climbed to unhinged heights not seen since the 2017 crisis. The focus of the DPRK's latest threats has mostly been its neighbor, South Korea - a US treaty ally where tens of thousands of American troops are stationed. In January, Kim Jong-Un had the constitution changed to name South Korea “number one hostile state.” That same month, he ordered the ministry responsible for Korean reunification to be permanently shuttered, and had the reunification monument in Pyongyang bulldozed into the ground for good measure. While such bombastic actions may seem par for the course for Kim, they represent a sea change in decades of DPRK policy - the official abandonment of reunification as a goal. In the case of the Hwasong-16B, its range is long enough that those assets could be anywhere in Japan or Guam. Home to multiple US military bases and over 70,000 combined personnel, Japan and Guam are thought to be prime targets for a pre-emptive strike in DPRK military planning. Then there are the longer-range missiles, the ones that could hit the US homeland. Back in December, Deutsche Welle reported on a new North Korean ICBM test that could place the whole of North America at risk. Technically, Kim has had this ability since 2017, but the new Hwasong-18 is bigger and more-powerful than previous missiles. Now, this doesn't mean a North Korean nuclear strike against the US would necessarily go according to plan. Bloomberg notes that: “It's unclear whether the country's ICBMs could beat US antimissile systems and are refined enough to strike their intended targets, as well as whether the warheads could survive reentry into the atmosphere.” Still, the point isn't that Kim could obliterate Los Angeles or New York today, but that his missile technology is rapidly improving. Perhaps to the point where the regime could soon pose a real threat to American cities. This is one reason why experts fear 2024 may yet bring another extremely unwelcome development: a new North Korean nuclear test. So far in its history, the DPRK has tested six nuclear devices. The most-recent - and by far the most-powerful - was in September of 2017. Since then, the North's tech has improved, and its stockpile grown.

The Fading Fear: North Korea's Threat in a Shifting Global Landscape

From a mere 40 to 50 warheads, the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses now estimates Pyongyang has between 80 and 90 nukes. Since 2020, the UN has assessed that the North has “probably” succeeded in miniaturizing its warheads to fit onto ballistic missiles. A seventh test, then, could be the next step in Kim's provocations - and likely a highly destabilizing one. War on the Rocks suggests it might be timed to coincide with this year's presidential election. And it's here we get to a worrying aspect of the North Korean threat. When the word “threat” is used in the Korean context, many of us just assume that the logical outcome of this is renewed war on the peninsula. But, as we're about to see, there are many other ways Pyongyang could engineer a crisis without launching an armed attack on its neighbors. A crisis which, although smaller than all-out war, could still impact the entire world. (TITLE): Threshold Threats The arrival of North Korean missiles in the Ukraine War was bad for a number of reasons. The obvious one is that it gave Russia a munitions boost at a time when Ukraine was closing the gap between them. But it's not just because of their direct impact on Ukraine's frontlines that Pyongyang's shipments caused consternation. In a January 10th meeting of the UN Security Council, South Korea's representative pointed out that Russia's use of DPRK weapons was allowing Kim to test his stockpile in a real-life war. That, in turn, was feeding back reams of useful data to the North Koreans, allowing them to improve their missiles. Seoul's concern was - obviously - that these weapons would one day be used against them. Yet it's not only South Korea that should be worried. Now that Kim has pulled off a successful arms deal with Russia, there are concerns that his regime might try to shop its weapons to other conflicts around the globe. The Washington Post writes that: “every time a North Korean weapon kills a Ukrainian, that's a sales pitch for Pyongyang's weapons industry to any aggressor with cash on hand.” Not so long ago, the idea of states scrambling to buy North Korean weapons would've raised a wry smile. With rockets prone to misfires and heavy UN sanctions in place, few nations would have thought it worth their while. But what's good enough for Russia is likely to be good enough for other nations like Iran. And Russia's Security Council veto means the UN won't be able to do anything about it. This is one scarily-plausible way that Pyongyang could destabilize multiple regions of the world. Not by launching nuclear attacks, but by shifting weapons to other rogue regimes that could then be used to prolong conflicts.

A History of Provocation: Understanding North Korea's Military Posturing

Given the sanctions busting this would involve, even the mere act of making these shipments would chip away at the international order. Another possibility revolves around Kim's favorite toy in his arsenal: nuclear weapons. We mentioned last chapter how Pyongyang might conduct a nuclear test this year - an event that could be timed to coincide with the US presidential election. That in and of itself would be a dangerous provocation. But a greater danger might come in the aftermath. If post-election America takes a sharp, isolationist turn just as Kim is testing his nukes, then we could potentially see a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula. At the moment, the presence of tens of thousands of American troops in South Korea - backed up by a defense treaty - means Seoul feels comfortable that Kim will not attack. Doing so would require killing so many American soldiers that Washington would undoubtedly launch a massive counterstrike that would annihilate the North Korean regime. But a Trump victory in 2024 might change the calculation. As AP News points out, Trump spent his previous term floating the idea of withdrawing all US troops from South Korea if Seoul didn't pay billions extra. On top of that, Pyongyang's growing ability to launch nukes that could hit the American homeland has South Korean military planners worried that an isolationist president wouldn't even consider counterattacking, lest Kim fire a missile that could destroy Washington. The former leader of South Korea's special forces seemed to sum these fears up best when he told the Financial Times: “I have never doubted an American soldier. But I would be foolish to place my nation's security in the hands of an American politician.” With polls showing over seventy percent of South Koreans would support their country going nuclear, the most destabilizing thing Kim might wind up doing is pushing Seoul to get its own nukes - something President Yoon directly threatened in January 2023, declaring Seoul would: “acquire our own nukes if the situation gets worse.” Now, you might reasonably ask why a nuclear South Korea would be a threat. After all, four states have acquired the bomb since the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed, and two of them - India and Pakistan - arguably have an even worse relationship than the two Koreas. But just because India and Pakistan have so-far refrained from nuclear war doesn't mean it's a good idea for multiple states to get the bomb. Every new nuclear state increases the possibility of someone, someday miscalculating and unleashing large-scale destruction. And there's good reason to think South Korea acquiring nukes would act as a starting gun for other nations.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much is $1 in North Korean won?

See the full article for details on How much is $1 in.

Is Coca-Cola illegal in North Korea?

See the full article for details on Is Coca-Cola illegal in North.

Would China defend North Korea in a war?

See the full article for details on Would China defend North Korea.

What risk level is North Korea?

See the full article for details on What risk level is North.

Why is North Korea such a threat?

See the full article for details on Why is North Korea such.

Related Coverage

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →