Implications of North Korea’s nuclear progression
It's amazing how North Korea has been able to outwit its fierce nuclear opponents — UN, South Korea, Japan, China & US
The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and a former federal secretary. He has also served as chairman of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board
North Korea’s recent underground nuclear test was the fourth since it first joined the nuclear club in 2006. The announcement, as expected, was widely condemned worldwide. The UN secretary general issued a strong statement and so did President Barack Obama, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye. The South Korean Army went on alert. China, which at one time had considered North Korea an ally, was furious and issued a strong statement condemning the test.
North Korea announced that it was a hydrogen bomb whereas experts refute the claim. It would, however, take months to figure out as to the exact intensity and power of the bomb. This assessment will be based on calculations from emissions in the atmosphere and evaluation of shockwaves and other triggers.
One thing is clear. As the world and especially the nuclear superpowers were focused on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea made major strides in ratcheting up its programme. It is amazing how North Korea has been able to outwit its fierce nuclear opponents — the UN, South Korea, Japan, China and of course the US, whose carrot and stick approach does not seem to have worked. Despite severe sanctions and the desperate state of its economy, North Korea has developed a fairly elaborate nuclear infrastructure. US intelligence estimates that at the current rate, North Korea should have by the end of the year about 20 nuclear bombs. Obviously, the US and the West will further tighten sanctions, but a totalitarian regime can afford to ignore the hardships imposed upon its people as long as the power elite are kept satisfied.
There are, of course, strong technical considerations that must also have driven North Korea to undertake the test, which clearly demonstrates that it is moving towards miniaturisation so that its nuclear warheads can be mounted on missiles. Technical experts do not validate North Korea’s claim that it was a hydrogen bomb, which works in two stages. In the first stage, a fission bomb is detonated and its energy is focused on light nuclei to create plasma that triggers fusion. Experts are of the view that it is most likely hydrogen that isotopes or tritium were used to boost the yield of the bomb.
The process of evaluating an underground test takes months, but the UN facilities at Vienna, considered to be the world’s most elaborate, will be able to eventually determine the true characteristics of the bomb. The test was a serious attempt by North Korea at upgrading its nuclear and missile programme by moving in the direction of miniaturisation. If it is able to master these technologies, in due course this could have serious security implications for the US and its allies.
For Kim Jong-un, successful nuclear weapon and missile tests are also a means to establish his credibility with the powerful military and consolidate his political power. Besides, the demonstration of nuclear power acts as a strong deterrent against any move to destabilise the regime. The nuclear weapon has become the mainstay of preserving the regime and interestingly also provides the world a window to view North Korea’s technological progress and modernisation.
Washington’s expectations that the regime’s harsh attitude towards its people and stringent international sanctions will unravel the power structure have not worked. The US’s unwillingness to engage with North Korea unless it agrees to dismantle its nuclear facilities has not succeeded either. On the contrary, it has provided the regime with a reason to further tighten the grip on its people. North Korea even defies China’s advice, the only country with which it values its relations. China realises that the North Korean nuclear threat will push both Japan and South Korea further into the US nuclear umbrella and will be an incentive for these countries to enhance their military capabilities. The US and other major powers remain at a loss when it comes to dealing with North Korea’s complexities.
The attitude of the US and other Western countries towards North Korea has been in sharp contrast to their attitude towards Iran. The US had relied heavily on tightening sanctions and hoped that would bring the North Korean regime down. President Obama has been criticised for pursuing the policy of “strategic patience”. According to critics, it provided space to North Korea to build an elaborate infrastructure of producing both uranium and plutonium bombs. This criticism overlooks the fact that the North Korean resolve to build the bomb spans a few decades and a few US presidents. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the two countries resulted in North Korea providing details of its nuclear capabilities. It was presumed that it would give up its programme in exchange for lifting of sanctions. The agreement collapsed in 2003 and North Korea, defying world opinion, resumed its programme.
Even this time, the world’s focus on the North Korean nuclear programme could recede as the civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State and the power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia take centre stage, although the development of long-range missiles and miniaturisation of warhead by North Korea are developments that should trigger alarm bells in the US.
It is very much possible that North Korea’s reinvigorated nuclear weapons programme could give rise to a rethink in Japan and South Korea about developing their own deterrents instead of the current doctrine of relying on the extended deterrence provided by the US.
Will the North Korean development revive awareness of the dangers inherent in proliferation of nuclear weapons? And more importantly, will it lead to renewed efforts towards reduction and ultimately elimination of nuclear weapons? As long as the US and Russia do not take the lead, it is inconceivable that the other seven nuclear powers will voluntarily agree to eliminate or even reduce their stockpile. Regrettably, the opposite is what we are witnessing as the US and Russia are both modernising and upgrading their nuclear arsenals and are engaged in fighting proxy wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 13th, 2016.
North Korea announced that it was a hydrogen bomb whereas experts refute the claim. It would, however, take months to figure out as to the exact intensity and power of the bomb. This assessment will be based on calculations from emissions in the atmosphere and evaluation of shockwaves and other triggers.
One thing is clear. As the world and especially the nuclear superpowers were focused on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, North Korea made major strides in ratcheting up its programme. It is amazing how North Korea has been able to outwit its fierce nuclear opponents — the UN, South Korea, Japan, China and of course the US, whose carrot and stick approach does not seem to have worked. Despite severe sanctions and the desperate state of its economy, North Korea has developed a fairly elaborate nuclear infrastructure. US intelligence estimates that at the current rate, North Korea should have by the end of the year about 20 nuclear bombs. Obviously, the US and the West will further tighten sanctions, but a totalitarian regime can afford to ignore the hardships imposed upon its people as long as the power elite are kept satisfied.
There are, of course, strong technical considerations that must also have driven North Korea to undertake the test, which clearly demonstrates that it is moving towards miniaturisation so that its nuclear warheads can be mounted on missiles. Technical experts do not validate North Korea’s claim that it was a hydrogen bomb, which works in two stages. In the first stage, a fission bomb is detonated and its energy is focused on light nuclei to create plasma that triggers fusion. Experts are of the view that it is most likely hydrogen that isotopes or tritium were used to boost the yield of the bomb.
The process of evaluating an underground test takes months, but the UN facilities at Vienna, considered to be the world’s most elaborate, will be able to eventually determine the true characteristics of the bomb. The test was a serious attempt by North Korea at upgrading its nuclear and missile programme by moving in the direction of miniaturisation. If it is able to master these technologies, in due course this could have serious security implications for the US and its allies.
For Kim Jong-un, successful nuclear weapon and missile tests are also a means to establish his credibility with the powerful military and consolidate his political power. Besides, the demonstration of nuclear power acts as a strong deterrent against any move to destabilise the regime. The nuclear weapon has become the mainstay of preserving the regime and interestingly also provides the world a window to view North Korea’s technological progress and modernisation.
Washington’s expectations that the regime’s harsh attitude towards its people and stringent international sanctions will unravel the power structure have not worked. The US’s unwillingness to engage with North Korea unless it agrees to dismantle its nuclear facilities has not succeeded either. On the contrary, it has provided the regime with a reason to further tighten the grip on its people. North Korea even defies China’s advice, the only country with which it values its relations. China realises that the North Korean nuclear threat will push both Japan and South Korea further into the US nuclear umbrella and will be an incentive for these countries to enhance their military capabilities. The US and other major powers remain at a loss when it comes to dealing with North Korea’s complexities.
The attitude of the US and other Western countries towards North Korea has been in sharp contrast to their attitude towards Iran. The US had relied heavily on tightening sanctions and hoped that would bring the North Korean regime down. President Obama has been criticised for pursuing the policy of “strategic patience”. According to critics, it provided space to North Korea to build an elaborate infrastructure of producing both uranium and plutonium bombs. This criticism overlooks the fact that the North Korean resolve to build the bomb spans a few decades and a few US presidents. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the two countries resulted in North Korea providing details of its nuclear capabilities. It was presumed that it would give up its programme in exchange for lifting of sanctions. The agreement collapsed in 2003 and North Korea, defying world opinion, resumed its programme.
Even this time, the world’s focus on the North Korean nuclear programme could recede as the civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State and the power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia take centre stage, although the development of long-range missiles and miniaturisation of warhead by North Korea are developments that should trigger alarm bells in the US.
It is very much possible that North Korea’s reinvigorated nuclear weapons programme could give rise to a rethink in Japan and South Korea about developing their own deterrents instead of the current doctrine of relying on the extended deterrence provided by the US.
Will the North Korean development revive awareness of the dangers inherent in proliferation of nuclear weapons? And more importantly, will it lead to renewed efforts towards reduction and ultimately elimination of nuclear weapons? As long as the US and Russia do not take the lead, it is inconceivable that the other seven nuclear powers will voluntarily agree to eliminate or even reduce their stockpile. Regrettably, the opposite is what we are witnessing as the US and Russia are both modernising and upgrading their nuclear arsenals and are engaged in fighting proxy wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 13th, 2016.