Behind the Bamboo Curtain

An analysis of North Korean nuclear and conventional capabilities and the policies needed to address this threat

Eric Fischer

4/28/2013

Introduction

With the recent nuclear test in February and increasingly bellicose rhetoric and threats of

force by Kim Jong-un, tensions between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)

and the United States appear to be approaching an all-time high. While this may just be a

response to the annual joint US – South Korean military exercises many analysts fear that unlike

in the past, North Korea may be willing to act out on its threats. This is due to the fact that the

DPRK’s new leader, Kim Jong-un, is young and untested and may seek a more aggressive policy

to consolidate his power and convince his people that he is strong enough to lead them. South

Korea has also stated that any future acts of aggression made by North Korea would be

responded with necessary force, a reversal of previous South Korean policies.

These developments have led many to wonder just how real and dangerous a threat North

Korea poses to American interests and security. The United States has invested thousands of

troops and vehicles along the de-militarized zone (DMZ) that would be in grave danger should

North Korea launch an attack into the South. Also at possible risk are dozens of US bases in

South Korea, Japan and the Pacific, which could also be within striking distance of the DPRK’s

most advanced missiles. With billions of dollars of military hardware and thousands of lives at

risk, it is imperative that we develop a clear form of action to contain this possible threat to

America and the Pacific region as a whole.

The purpose of this paper will be to evaluate the capabilities of both the nuclear and

conventional forces of the North Korean military and evaluate the threat they pose to US national

security. This will include both the strengths and weaknesses these assets possess and how they

would be used if hostilities were to break out. I will also examine the post-Korean war

skirmishes between the DPRK and the United States and South Korea, as well as under what

1

circumstances many of these confrontations occurred. Finally, I will determine what policy

strategies will be best to address this situation and the steps needed to ensure their success. Past

methods of punishment directed against North Korea will also be looked at, as well as whether or

not they were successful.

Background Information

The Korean War ended with an armistice between the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), with the two nations divided along the 38th

parallel. Since a formal peace treaty was never signed between the two nations, both sides

technically remain in a state of war. As a result, this 160 mile long demilitarized zone has

become the most heavily fortified border in the entire world, with the forces of North Korea

silently facing off against the combined forces of South Korea and the United States.

This last vestige of the Cold War has long been a flashpoint of multiple military

incursions and skirmishes. “For decades, exchanges of fire and reports of territorial incursions

have been an annual--if not monthly--occurrence,” (Tharoor). Included are the capturing of the

US naval vessel the USS Pueblo in 1968, and the hacking to death of two US Army officers with

axes along the DMZ in 1976. In recent years, military clashes between both sides have occurred

with increased frequency around the Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea. Both North and

South Korea were involved in limited naval engagements along the NLN in 1999 and 2002,

resulting in several deaths and casualties on both sides. Tensions reached a maximum in 2010

following two separate attacks on South Korean forces by the North. The first incident occurred

in March when the South Korean Navy corvette, Cheonan, was sunk near Baengnyeong Island in

the Yellow Sea killing 46 personnel. A joint investigation would later reveal that the ship was

2

sunk by a North Korean torpedo. The second clash occurred in November when North Korean

artillery attacked Yeonpyeong Island killing two South Korean soldiers and two civilians. It is

due to the increased frequency of incidents such as these that many experts believe that the NLN

will be the most likely target in future acts of North Korean aggression. They have stated that,

“[i]f history is any guide, the most likely flashpoint is the Yellow Sea…,” (Klug). As such, it

may be of benefit to keep a closer eye on this region in order to identify any potential

confrontations that could escalate into full-scale war.

It is also important to note the specific times such acts of North Korean belligerence have

occurred, as they are not random acts of aggression. Many of North Korea’s missile tests and

border incursions have come after either American and South Korean military exercises or the

implementation of new sanctions on the country. In the past two months North Korea was given

the most severe economic sanctions placed on the country to date and had a front row seat to

April’s month-long joint American-South Korean war-games. In more recent years, “North

Korea has attempted a military provocation within weeks of every South Korean presidential

inauguration…,” (Klug). This fact should be a cause for concern considering that the new South

Korean president was inaugurated this past February. These three factors combined at once lend

credence to the fear that North Korea is planning another military operation, although this time

the South has made clear that it will respond directly if attacked, which could result in all-out

conflict between the DPRK, the ROK and the United States.

North Korean Military Capabilities

When it comes to understanding the true military capabilities of North Korea there are a

lot of things that are unknown to US intelligence. Adding to this uncertainty is the secrecy

3

behind which Kim Jong-un’s regime operates. Despite these shortcomings experts can still piece

together some picture of the capabilities of the North Korean military. What these experts say

goes against how the North Korean military is normally portrayed in Western media and culture.

Former Commander of the US Forces in Korea, General Thomas A Schwartz, testified back in

2001 that “…the North Korean military threat was growing,” (Oh). Other analysts have stated

that, “North Korea has not only the military power but also the political will to wage total war

against the United States,” (Suk). Once North Korea has committed to starting a war with the

United States, they will use all methods and means to achieve victory, and they are an enemy

that should not be taken lightly. This includes the use of both conventional and nuclear forces on

American and South Korean targets and personnel.

Arguably the deadliest conventional forces of the North Korean military are its artillery

assets. The DPRK has placed thousands of heavy artillery guns along the DMZ within range of

Seoul and multiple US military bases and fortifications. These guns, “…can rain 500,000

conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at

Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter

of hours,” (Suk). A first strike from these artillery forces would destroy all frontline forces

before they have a chance to retaliate. North Korea’s armored forces are well designed for

fighting in the rugged Korean terrain. They are also well enough protected to withstand all but

the most powerful American projectiles. The majority of the North’s mechanized units are

positioned in well protected bunkers along the DMZ, and in the opening moments of any conflict

will race across the border in a blitzkrieg attack and overwhelm the American and South Korean

defenders. North Korea has a standing army of well over 1 million soldiers with reserves of up

to 7 million troops. It has also built an elaborate tunnel system beneath the DMZ which would

4

allow ground troops to flank US positions from behind. The DPRK also has the largest Special

Forces branch in the world and has the means to transport large groups of these soldiers to their

targets in planes that can fly below American radar, maintaining the element of surprise in an

attack. “These troops will be tasked to attack US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa

and Guam,” (Suk). However one major disadvantage for North Korean ground forces is the lack

of ammunition and fuel. These supplies are of such scarcity that many troops can only train for

small periods of time. The North’s ground forces are also extremely outdated and although

heavily armored, the United States has the capability of destroying these units.

The North Korean Navy consists of over 700 ships, the bulk of which are made up of

small missile boats, patrol craft and submarines. These missile boats are equipped with long-

range rockets and anti-carrier missiles. They are designed to be launched in large enough

numbers to overwhelm American task force defenses and take out the carrier fleets. The DPRK

submarine force is capable of inserting Special Forces behind enemy lines and silently attacking

South Korean and American ships. As proven in the recent skirmishes and attacks on South

Korean vessels, North Korea has shown that it is not restrained in using its Navy offensively.

North Korea’s Air Force has over 1000 aircraft, however many of these planes are

obsolete and no match for American air power. The DPRK’s most advanced aircraft are used

solely for the defense of the capital city of Pyongyang. Many pilots also lack formal training and

experience due to fuel shortages. The effectiveness of the North Korean Air Force in a conflict

with the US would depend upon the country’s ability to take out American airbases and aircraft

quickly and decisively. This task may lie well within North Korea’s military capabilities as “…

US planes are parked above ground at bases in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam, and make

5

easy targets for missile, rocket and air attacks,” (Suk). Unless it accomplishes this task the North

Korean Air Force would at best be limited to a supporting role.

The hardware that poses the greatest risk to US forces and assets are the North’s ballistic

missiles and nuclear weapons. Over the last several years North Korea has tested several

medium and long range missiles with mixed results. With each test however North Korean

missile technology grows more advanced. Recent reports have stated that, “[t]hese advances

in ballistic-missile delivery systems, coupled with developments in nuclear

technology ... are in line with North Korea's stated objective of being able to strike the

U.S. homeland,” (Alexander). This fact was confirmed when North Korea’s most recent

satellite launch attempt proved successful, demonstrating a clear improvement in rocket and

missile technologies. It is currently believed that North Korea’s most effective medium and long

range missiles are capable of hitting targets not just in South Korea, Japan, Guam or Okinawa,

but also Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands. The missile causing greatest concern is the

Taepodong-2, which could be capable of reaching the US mainland with continued development.

This presents a significant threat to US security as it places the majority of the United States

Pacific operations within range of these missiles. “At present, the US has no fool-proof defense

against North Korean missiles, and in case of war, North Korean missiles can do serious

damages: several hundreds of thousands of US troops will die, and scores of US bases and

carrier battle groups will be destroyed,” (Suk). This is clearly a disaster scenario as it will take

out the bulk of the forces that would be used in retaliatory strikes and prevents the North from

advancing into South Korea. It would also cut off any surviving US forces in South Korea from

receiving reinforcements and supplies. The capabilities of North Korea’s nuclear program are

more difficult to determine. The number of nukes North Korea is thought to possess has been

debated from numbering in the dozens to over 100. At this time however, North Korea does not

6

possess the technology to make nuclear weapons small enough to fit on the heads of missiles,

and is believed that the nation is still several years away from perfecting this technology. The

DPRK’s nuclear stockpile however, could still be used on US forces and bases on the Korean

peninsula with devastating results.

Despite its military shortcomings, the North Korean military still stands as a powerful

and significant threat to US interests. The Commander of US Forces in Korea during 2003,

General Leon LaPorta, has stated that, “[w]ith 1.2 million people under arms, the North Korean

military is a very credible conventional force. They have the largest submarine force, the largest

special operating force, and the largest artillery in the world,” and “[t]he sheer size of their

military makes North Korea a threat, even if their equipment is not as up to date as it could be,”

(Signoriello). With so many American lives and assets at risk, it is imperative that a clear set of

policies are established to deal with this threat through peaceful and if necessary military means.

Model Application and Policy Recommendations

When deciding on what action to take in addressing the threat North Korea poses, there

are two different approaches to consider. These are the liberal approach and the realist approach.

The liberal approach emphasizes diplomacy and international cooperation in solving world

crises, and stresses the importance of compromise in making agreements. Realists on the other

hand, believe that international laws and organizations do not work, and feel that it is an

individual states duty to protect its own national interests through any means, including making

war. This can be with or without international support and cooperation.

The history of diplomatic engagement with North Korea is shaky at best. America first

used a liberal negotiation strategy to deal with the threat posed by North Korea. Up until several

7

years ago, Six-Party Talks were held between the United States, North Korea, South Korea,

Japan, China and Russia. For a while it appeared that these negotiations were effective in

convincing North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. However, these talks eventually broke

down, and the DPRK reversed its policies and restarted its reactors to produce nuclear materials

for weapons. After these negotiations collapsed, the United States changed course and began to

pursue a more realist policy strategy, increasing its military presence in the region and placing

numerous economic sanctions upon North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions. Pyongyang

viewed these actions as a threat and responded with an increasingly belligerent stance towards

America and South Korea. This has led to the current standoff and increased tensions we see

today on the Korean Peninsula. It’s clearly apparent that past methods of punishment and

negotiation have failed to properly address the threat posed by North Korea, and that a new

strategy is needed. This policy needs to combine both realist and liberal aspects in order to be

successful in quelling the North’s bellicose actions and attitude.

First and foremost is the need to restart negotiations on the Korean Peninsula. “The only

way to make the waters off the Korean Peninsula safer and to stop further nuclear proliferation is

to negotiate in earnest--Six-Party Talks must be resumed…,” (Sigal). This will help reestablish

much-needed dialogue between the two sides so that they can begin taking the proper steps

needed to decrease tensions and cooperate. The United States should also consider how North

Korea has responded to past punishments such as economic sanctions. “Cutting off the country’s

trade and cash flow will be a powerful tool that North Korea is likely to seize upon as an excuse

for further belligerence…,” (Fitzpatrick). As examined before the main causes of many of North

Korea’s outbursts come from the implementation of new economic sanctions and reduced aid.

The US should keep this in mind when developing a framework for dealing with the DPRK,

8

limiting the use of sanctions and the restriction of aid unless they are absolutely necessary. It

may also be prudent to create incentives for the North Korean government as many analysts

agree that, “…international strategies to denuclearize North Korea need to focus on measures

that will meet the nation’s internal needs…,” (Ahn). These incentives should focus on food and

medical aid as these supplies are scarce within the impoverished nation.

America must also recognize that, “…these goals point to the need for security

cooperation among the key interested parties, particularly the United States and China,”

(Huntley). If America ever hopes to have success in negotiating North Korea’s denuclearization,

it must improve relations and form closer ties to the major power in the region, China. The PRC

is North Korea’s closest ally and trading partner, and is therefore of great strategic value in

helping the United States contain the North Korean threat. Most experts say “…China has the

best chance of persuading North Korea to return to the goal of denuclearization,” (Fitzpatrick).

In recent years though, China has become ever more reluctant to support its neighbor as it

engages in ever more threatening behavior. The division over how prosperous China has

become and the continued poverty of North Korea has also strained relations between the two

Asian powers. This presents a perfect opportunity for the United States to pursue more formal

relations with China and encourage them to play a significant role in the negotiation process and

support the United States’ policy in dealing with the DPRK. Analysts also agree that, “…the

United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia should engage Beijing in strategic planning about

the future of northeast Asia,” (Fitzpatrick). China’s power and influence in the region makes

them an invaluable asset in addressing North Korea.

Finally, the United States must also continue to maintain a large military presence in the

area to deter any North Korean aggression. This includes an increased focus on positioning

9

strategic forces near the Northern Line Limit, as this is this is most prone to instances of military

confrontation. America should also deploy antimissile systems such as the ship-based Aegis and

land-based Patriot, to protect against and discourage North Korean missile attacks. The United

States should also continue holding joint military exercises with South Korean forces to ensure

that they are prepared to deal with any North Korean incursion that may occur. While these war-

games have had a history of aggravating or provoking North Korea, they are necessary

considering the security threat North Korea poses to the United States and Northeast Asia.

Direct military action against North Korea should be reserved only if the threat from North

Korea becomes grave enough to warrant a preemptive strike, or retaliate against an invasion

from the North.

Conclusion

As a result of the research that I have conducted, I can conclude that a combined liberal

and realist policy strategy would be most effective in containing the North Korean threat. By

engaging in peaceful dialogue while at the same time protecting against North Korean

aggression, the United States can show North Korea that we are willing to negotiate with the

regime but will not be intimidated by threats or violent acts. My research also revealed several

surprising aspects regarding the threat posed by the DPRK. It has shown how North Korea is

more likely to respond aggressively after American displays of military power or after receiving

severe economic sanctions. North Korea’s military has also been exposed to be a much greater

threat than many people believe, and is capable of inflicting severe damage to American bases

and personnel. While my research helped to ascertain the specific military capabilities North

Korea has, future researchers may wish to study how the stability of the North Korean

10

government would affect regional security and the actions conducted by North Korean forces

concerning military confrontations. Other questions include how this specific personality of the

current North Korean leader such as, Kim Jong-un, play in the country’s willingness to negotiate

and how North Korea responds to perceived threats. The greatest flaw that these determined

policies hold is the uncertainty and unpredictability of North Korea itself. While these are the

best strategies in countering the threat, North Korea has shown time and time again that it will

play by its own rules. As the world continues to debate over how to adequately respond to the

DPRK’s increasingly belligerent stance, the security of America remains at risk as North Korea

continues to develop its military capabilities. The specter of war continues to loom over the

Korean Peninsula, with both American and South Korean forces keeping constant watch at the

threat that hides behind the Bamboo Curtain.

11

Bibliography

Ahn, Mun Suk. “What Is the Root Cause of the North Korean Nuclear Program?” Asian Affairs:

An American Review. Vol. 38, Iss. 4, 2011

Alexander, David. "North Korea could reach U.S. with nuclear arms: Pentagon." Yahoo News.

Reuters, 12 Mar 2013. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-could-

eventually-reach-u-nuclear-arms-003551611.html>.

Fitzpatrick, Mark. "Stopping Nuclear North Korea." Survival (00396338) 51.4 (2009): 5-

12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 May 2013.

Huntley, Wade L. “U.S. Policy toward North Korea in Strategic Context: Tempting Goliath's

Fate.” Asian Survey , Vol. 47, No. 3 (May/June 2007), pp. 455-480, Published by: University

of California Press Article DOI: 10.1525/as.2007.47.3.455

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2007.47.3.455

Klug, Foster. "History shows NKorean pattern: wait, then attack." Yahoo News. Associated

Press, 12 Mar 2013. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://news.yahoo.com/history-shows-nkorean-pattern-

wait-then-attack-112646404.html>.

12

Oh, Kongdan, and Ralph C. Hassig. "The North Korean Military As A Security Threat." East

Asia: An International Quarterly 20.2 (2003): 5-20. International Political Science

Abstracts. Web. 3 May 2013.

Sigal, Leon V. "Primer-North Korea, South Korea, And The United States: Reading Between

The Lines Of The Cheonan Attack." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 66.5 (2010): 35-

44. Environment Complete. Web. 3 May 2013.

Signoriello, John. "North vs South Korea: the balance of military power." Examiner.com.

Examiner.com, 27 Jul 2010. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://www.examiner.com/article/north-vs-

south-korea-the-balance-of-military-power>.

Suk, Han Ho. "N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US-A Strategy Of Massive Retaliations

Against US Attacks." Rense.com. Information Clearing House, 24 Apr 2003. Web. 3 May

2013. <http://rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm>.

Tharoor, Ishaan. "Brief History." Time 176.24 (2010): 27. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3

May 2013.

13