North Korea's apparent decision to pursue tactical nuclear weapons is pointless or perhaps an admission of difficulty getting working ICBMs that can survive the journey and get past American missile defenses.
In January 2021, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told his country – and the world – about the plans he had for the evolution and modernization of his nuclear deterrent. He outlined a far-reaching, ambitious menu of military modernization goals. Among these were tactical nuclear weapons, a capability that North Korea had until then not formally sought.
The development and eventual deployment of tactical nuclear weapons by North Korea will represent the most serious negative development for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula since the country’s development of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles capable of ranging the United States.
The article rightly notes that the idea that "tactical" nukes going off around South Korean cities is unlikely to generate the nuanced calm in South Korea of not being hit with a bigger nuke.
And I'm not convinced North Korea has working ICBMs. It is possible that pursuing easier-to-build short-range nukes is more likely to succeed with North Korea's resources.
Although shooting those down is much easier.
To me it seems that nukes don't add anything that North Korea's chemical weapons capabilities don't already threaten--to weaken South Korea's ground forces to pave the way for a North Korean ground offensive.
Yet North Korea's army and even the once-supported commandos are rotting away. How will they exploit the potential chaos of nuclear strikes? Hell, the U.S. is making a claim that might be relevant:
The Russian Ministry of Defense is in the process of purchasing millions of rockets and artillery shells from North Korea for its ongoing fight in Ukraine, according to a newly downgraded U.S. intelligence finding.
Are tactical nukes intended to make up for less ammunition? Or do the North Koreans accept that their conventional forces are so degraded that ammunition levels are irrelevant. And North Korea finally has a customer desperate enough to use their probably ancient ammunition?
I think pursuing tactical nukes makes it more dangerous for North Korea. South Korea is more likely to launch decapitation strikes on Pyongyang leadership with precision weapons; and more likely to advance north of the DMZ to deny those tactical nukes launching positions for strikes on Seoul.
Worse for Kim, if we conclude that North Korea is emphasizing tactical nukes because its longer-range weapons don't work, America is more likely to respond for South Korea with a nuke or two on North Korean military targets. This kind of joint South Korean-Japanese-American unity of response is thus more likely.
And if we won't commit to that kind of respone, South Korea may pursue nukes. Might China finally get serious about reining in their little pet psycho to keep that cascading choice around China's periphery from starting? (Note that I was clearly wrong to expect American military action. All I can say is that in 1994 I thought we were on the edge of striking, yet we did not. Years later I read we were actually close.)
NOTE: LOL. After writing this, I find I went over the some of the same ground 5 months ago.
NOTE: Winter War of 2022 updates continue here.
