Quotes of the Day:
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I will tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
- Robert A. Heinlein -The Moon is A Harsh Mistress
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
- Marie Curie
1. Moon says S. Korea seeks strong defense capability to ensure peace
2. N. Korea's SLBM drive aimed at regime survival, military edge, negotiation leverage: analysts
3. North Korea Missile Claim
4. North Korea hails a ‘successful’ SLBM test from submarine
5. N. Korean threat won't change even after end-of-war declaration: ex-USFK chief
6. Kim’s missile launch shakes up end-of-war talks
7. North Korea's missile launch leads to U.N. Security Council emergency meeting
8. US remains prepared to engage with DPRK after missile test: White House
9. FM Chung says N. Korea sanctions relief can be an option if it accepts dialogue offer
10. New Short-Range Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Tested By North Korea (Updated)
11. N. Korea plans to send around 1,000 workers to Russia as loggers
12. N Korea rattles from walking skeletons, not sabers
13. Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Could Let North Korea Off Easy
14. It’s Time for Biden to End the Korean War
15. Two Koreas showcase weapons tech despite attempts for talks
16. Netflix’s Squid Game savagely satirises our money-obsessed society – but it’s capitalism that is the real winner
1. Moon says S. Korea seeks strong defense capability to ensure peace
Peace through strength. If you want an end of war declaration and eventually peace treaty you must have a rock solid ROK/US alliance. You must have a combined military force that maintains the highest state of readiness to ensure deterrence. You cannot assume the regime has changed its nature, objectives, and strategy. You must negotiate from a position of strength. Kim Jong-un fears strength and exploits weakened readiness of the combined military force has been declining since the unilateral decision by the previous administration to halt combined training after the Singapore summit of 2018. Although the military did its best to provide alternative methods of training, this decision to cancel, postpone, or scale back training combined with COVID mitigation measures, has impacted readiness and deterrence. Before embarking on the quest for an end of war declaration the alliance should ensure its combined military force is at the highest state of readiness.
Moon says S. Korea seeks strong defense capability to ensure peace | Yonhap News Agency
By Kim Deok-hyun
SEOUL, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) -- Ensuring peace is the reason for South Korea to build strong defense capabilities, President Moon Jae-in said Wednesday, as the country seeks to build a military based on cutting-edge science and technology amid North Korea's missile and nuclear development.
Moon made the remarks at the opening ceremony of a biennial defense exhibition that offers an in-depth look at state-of-the-art military hardware like stealth jets, advanced missile interceptors and hydrogen-powered drones, hours after the North said it successfully test-fired a submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM).
"A strong defense capability is always aimed at ensuring peace," Moon said. "The Republic of Korea seeks to build a smart and strong armed forces based on state-of-the-art technology."
Based on comprehensive defense capabilities that no one dare challenge, South Korea will spare no efforts to ensure peace with the world, Moon said.
South Korea will also develop its defense industry as one of the nation's key growth engines for the world overflowing with peace and prosperity, Moon said.
Earlier in the day, North Korea confirmed that it conducted a test-firing of a new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile the previous day. Moon made no mention of the North's test-firing.
This week, South Korea is set to launch its homegrown space rocket. If successful, South Korea will become the world's 10th nation to send a satellite into space with its own technology.
The 200-ton Nuri, which is using liquid engines, is set to lift off Thursday by carrying a 1.5-ton mock payload at the Naro Space Center in Goheung, 473 kilometers south of Seoul.
Moon said South Korea will expand its investment in space technology, especially for solid propellant-related technologies for space launch vehicles.
South Korea plans to launch a homegrown solid-fuel space rocket in around 2024.
Compared with liquid-engine space vehicles, the solid-based ones are known to be quicker, simpler and more cost effective to launch.
South Korea submitted next year's total defense budget of 55.2 trillion won (US$46.8 billion) to the National Assembly, marking a 37 percent increase from 2017.
kdh@yna.co.kr
(END)
2. N. Korea's SLBM drive aimed at regime survival, military edge, negotiation leverage: analysts
Yes. All of the above. And the "military edge" is all about warfighting. We should not forget that the regime intends to use force when the conditions are right (both favorable to the north or when there is no other option to try to ensure regime survival). It remains an existential threat to the South and the development of an SLBM capability (as well the hypersonic missile and all the other advanced non-nuclear capabilities) indicate the regime's intent to prepare to use force when necessary. And of course these types of capabilities support the regime's political warfare strategy and blackmail diplomacy.
The alliance must maintain peace through strength as President Moon has said in so many words today.
(News Focus) N. Korea's SLBM drive aimed at regime survival, military edge, negotiation leverage: analysts | Yonhap News Agency
By Song Sang-ho
SEOUL, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's drive to develop submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) appears aimed at sharpening its military edge to ensure the security of the dynastic regime and bolstering leverage for future nuclear talks, analysts said Wednesday.
The North test-fired a new type of SLBM on Tuesday, after flaunting several seaborne missiles during last week's defense exhibition and others at military parades earlier this year and last year -- in a move highlighting its steadfast focus on the submarine-based delivery vehicle.
The latest launch came as Seoul, Washington and Tokyo crank up their trilateral engagement to strategize on incentivizing Pyongyang to return to dialogue through humanitarian aid and assurances of "no hostility" toward the recalcitrant regime.
The saber-rattling also followed the North's derision of a recently unveiled South Korean SLBM as a "rudimentary, toddling-stage" weapon -- a reaction that observers said underscored the regime's growing wariness over its military stature dwarfed by the evolving South Korea-U.S. alliance.
"North Korea seems to be increasingly anxious and leery, as the South has been pushing for conventional yet formidable weaponry with the destructive power approximating that of nuclear arms, which raises uncertainty over the North's pursuit of a military balance or superiority," said Nam Chang-hee, professor of international politics at Inha University.
"A military inferiority that could follow the erosion of the North's military edge could undermine the legitimacy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The North could, in fact, feel the security threat," he added.
Indeed, Seoul and Washington have been beefing up their own high-tech weapons marked by greater accuracy, lethality and agility.
To counter the North's threats, the South has pushed to introduce not only the SLBM but also other high-tech weaponry, including longer-range missiles.
Earlier this month, the U.S. military showed off a powerful bunker buster bomb capable of destroying underground facilities like those in the North.
This week's missile launch appears to represent progress in the North's SLBM program, as the North claimed the missile was fired from a submarine rather than a barge or a ground platform -- an indication it has inched closer to the operational deployment of an SLBM.
The North's Academy of Defence Science test-fired the SLBM, into which "lots of advanced control guidance technologies, including flank mobility and gliding skip mobility, are introduced," the Korean Central News Agency reported.
The North's push for the development of SLBMs has spawned speculation that it is seeking to secure the menacing "second-strike" capability in order to respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear retaliation.
The SLBM is a bedrock asset for the second-strike capability as a submarine carrying it can operate undetected, launch counterstrikes and thus allow a country to survive an enemy's preemptive attack.
The SLBM is part of the formidable "nuclear triad" consisting of three key delivery vehicles -- intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), SLBMs and strategic bombers, which major nuclear powers like the United States possess.
"I think the SLBM is specifically a second strike deterrent against regime change," said Patrick M. Cronin, chair for Asia-Pacific Security at the U.S.-based Hudson Institute, claiming the North Korean leader is motivated by "fear and insecurity" but also a "thirst for power and legitimacy."
Some observers said the North's pursuit of the SLBM program could be part of its broader strategy to keep American forces at bay, undercut the U.S. nuclear umbrella and eventually decouple the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
Should the North fully develop its SLBM program and roll it out for combat operations, the U.S. could fear potential SLBM strikes and thus hesitate to come to the aid of its ally, South Korea, in the event of an attack -- a scenario that could put the bilateral alliance in jeopardy.
The North's latest SLBM launch also followed its call for the South and the U.S. to remove their "double-dealing standards," in reference to the allies referring to the North's missile launches as "provocations" while rationalizing their own as "deterrence."
In response to the launch, South Korea expressed "deep regrets" but stopped short of calling it a "provocation."
Undeterred by the latest show of force, South Korea doubled down on its efforts to bring the North back to the dialogue table.
Seoul's top nuclear envoy, Noh Kyu-duk, and his U.S. and Japanese counterparts -- Sung Kim and Takehiro Funakoshi, respectively -- met in Washington this week to explore joint efforts to resume nuclear diplomacy with Pyongyang through humanitarian aid and other support.
The nuclear envoys particularly discussed President Moon Jae-in's renewed proposal for the declaration of a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War, which Seoul officials describe as an effective confidence building measure.
Analysts presumed that Tuesday's SLBM launch might be partially intended to push the South and the U.S. to propose more concrete incentives to pave the way for the North's return to dialogue.
"The North might have intended to strengthen its bargaining power to secure concessions, such as sanctions relief," professor Nam said.
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
3. North Korea Missile Claim
So was this launched from the submerged barge? I do not think they have launched one from an operational submarine if it was launched from the same platform as in 2016.
North Korea Missile Claim
North Korea missile claim
STAFF
Text size
Japan’s exclusive economic zone Sea of Japan (East Sea)
It had "lots of advanced control guidance technologies":
state media KCNA Pyongyang says it tested a new type of
submarine- launched ballistic missile Fired from the same vessel
that NK used in its first SLBM test in 2016: KCNA
4. North Korea hails a ‘successful’ SLBM test from submarine
Maybe they have launched one from an operational submarine. I had thought they had only done so from the submerged barge. Perhaps the missile experts can shed some light.
North Korea hails a ‘successful’ SLBM test from submarine
New submarine-launched ballistic missile can exploit US, South Korean and other missile defense systems, expert says
SHARE
Image: Rodong Sinmun, Oct. 20, 2021 | North Korea reportedly tested a "new-type" of submarine-launched ballistic missile on Oct. 19, 2021
North Korea tested a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on Tuesday, according to state-run media on Wednesday.
The state media report comes a day after South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff assessed that North Korea launched one SLBM from waters in the Sinpho area of South Hamgyong Province, where a large shipyard is located.
The DPRK’s Academy of National Defense Science academy said that “the new-type” SLBM “introduced many developed controlling and homing technologies including the lateral movement and gliding and jumping movement,” hailing that it will “make a great contribution to further developing the defence technology of the country and improving the underwater operation capacity of the navy,” according to party-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun.
The Rodong Sinmun report did not include the range or apogee of the test, but claimed that the missile was tested from “August 24 Hero Warship,” the same submarine that was reportedly used for Pyongyang’s 2016 SLBM test.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was not mentioned in the report and it is unclear whether he personally attended the test. Yu Jin, director of the Munitions Industry Department of the Party Central Committee, Kim Jong Sik, the deputy director, as well as other academy officers guided the test, according to Rodong Sinmun.
Image: Rodong Sinmun, Oct. 20, 2021 | North Korea reportedly tested an SLBM on Oct. 19
THE ‘SMALL’ PUKGUKSONG?
Experts told NK News on Tuesday that the recent SLBM may have been a variant of North Korea’s KN-23 or -24, and appears to be on display at the “Self-Defense 2021” expo in Pyongyang.
A South Korean media report on Tuesday, citing an anonymous source, said that the apparent SLBM flew approximately 267 to 280 miles (430 to 450 kilometers), reaching a max altitude of 37 miles (60 kilometers).
The Japanese Ministry of Defense, meanwhile, said Tuesday that North Korea launched two missiles and that one had a maximum altitude of about 31 miles (50 kilometers) and a flying distance of about 373 miles (600 kilometers). The missile had a “possibility of being an SLBM,” it added. The ministry said it is still assessing details of a second missile.
North Korean state media on Wednesday released a photo of the SLBM test, and it appears similar to an unnamed model displayed next to other Pukguksong SLBMs at the defense expo.
Image: Rodong Sinmun, edited by NK News | Unknown missile at the “Self-Defense-2021” expo (L), SLBM tested on Oct. 19 (R)
“It was definitely the little guy,” said Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, comparing the photos.
In terms of the “new-type” SLBM’s capabilities, Lewis said that the new SLBM would be “good for evading missile defenses.”
The missile is likely used for flying shorter range, but with potentially “aeroballistic trajectory” and similar range as the KN-23 and -24 model missiles, he added. “But shorter than a strategic system. It’s a regional strike capability that would allow them to hit some [parts of] Seoul, Pyeongtaek or Busan [South Korea] from the sea.
“The smaller diameter [of the new SLBM] makes it lighter. This limits its payload capability and range, but the advantage is that more missiles of this type can be fitted into [the] North Korean submarine fleet,” said Tal Inbar, Senior Research Fellow, MDAA (Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance). “The altitude and range, as reported by ROK, suggests that the missile was fired on a depressed trajectory and was not tested to its operational range.”
Image; Rodong Sinmun, Oct. 20, 2021 | August 24 Hero Warship
Dave Schmerler, a senior research associate at the James Martin Center, told NK News that while it’s interesting to see North Korea using a platform in the water with a smaller design, the latest launch isn’t much more than a “technical demonstration.”
“We’re still waiting on the bigger submarine we saw in 2019, so until that launches this new SLBM doesn’t add any complexities to their missile fleet,” said Schmerler.
Image: KCTV | Kim Jong Un inspecting reportedly newly-built submarine in July 2019
Meanwhile, satellite imagery of the submarine base at Sinpho on Oct. 18 appeared to show that a barge may have been brought out in the bay.
Joseph Dempsey, a research associate for defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), raised the possibility that an underwater platform was used to launch the SLBM on Tuesday — not a submarine, as North Korea claimed.
“That is what North Korea indicates, but they have been proven wrong with previous SLBM launches. However, they have shown the Gorae/Sinpo-B with its missile hatch open which is at least an indicator,” Dempsey told NK News.
“An initial test of a new untested SLBM would typically use the barge because of the risk involved,” he added.
OUTSIDE HELP?
Inbar said that the speed at which North Korea is advancing its weapons raises the possibility that it may be receiving help from outside the country.
“The pace of recent North Korean achievements in missile [technology] is very impressive, and new systems – such as the Hwasong 8 missile with the HGV (Hypersonic glide vehicle) and new cruise missile indicates the level of technological capabilities of North Korea, as well as the will to deploy more advanced missiles,” Inbar assessed.
“In a mirror image of ROK programs, North Korea is – at least on the demonstrative aspect – shows that the potential threat posed by the ever-growing arsenal is very serious. Considering the success rate of all the new systems,” he added. “One may wonder if any outside help was given to Pyongyang.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Deptartment told NK News that the government condemns Pyongyang’s ballistic missile test, stressing North Korea’s launches are “a threat to the region.” “We call on the DPRK to refrain from further provocations and engage in sustained and substantive dialogue,” the spokesperson added.
The spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General raised concerns as well during a daily briefing, calling for Pyongyang to comply with Security Council resolutions and for North Korean authorities to return to the dialogue table with South Korea.
Edited by Arius Derr
Update at 16:15 KST, Oct. 20: This article has been updated to include further expert comments.
5. N. Korean threat won't change even after end-of-war declaration: ex-USFK chief
General Scaparrotti makes the key point that few will say out loud. The former commander of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command (which is the warfighting command charged by both the ROK and US with deterring war and defending the ROK) reminds that even with an end of war declaration the north will still pose an existential threat to the South. This is because he understands the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime.
N. Korean threat won't change even after end-of-war declaration: ex-USFK chief | Yonhap News Agency
By Song Sang-ho
SEOUL, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) -- North Korean security threats won't change even if a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War is declared, a former U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) chief said Wednesday, as Seoul pushes for the political declaration to help revive nuclear diplomacy with Pyongyang.
During a meeting with security experts in Seoul, Curtis Scaparrotti, who led the USFK from 2013-2016, stressed the "complex" issue of the declaration should be discussed in a "careful" way, as tensions flared anew with the North's test this week of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).
Addressing an annual U.N. General Assembly session in New York last month, President Moon Jae-in renewed his proposal for the declaration, which Seoul officials have cast as an effective confidence-building measure with the North.
"We, sometimes, forget to go back and think about the threat that this alliance was formed to counter. That won't change the day after the declaration of the end of the war," Scaparrotti said at the meeting hosted by the Korea-U.S. Alliance Foundation and Korea Defense Veterans Association.
"It will still be present in the same way, in the same place most likely, and our responsibility as an alliance is to defend the Republic Korea and the people here," added the former commander who also led the U.N. Command (UNC) and the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command during his stint as the USFK chief.
Commenting on the North's launch on Tuesday of the SLBM, Scaparrotti said it poses "another problem" to the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
"That is a problem with a country that's irresponsible with these missiles and the nuclear capability its developed and certainly, it poses another problem to the alliance," the former commander said.
"A submarine-launched capability is another threat to the alliance and one that we have to make adjustments and that we have to now consider in terms of the defense of the Republic of Korea," he added, referring to South Korea's official name.
The proposal for the end-of-war declaration has stirred up a debate in Seoul and Washington.
Some say the declaration would pave the way for full-fledged efforts to foster lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, while others warn that it could eventually lead to the dissolution of the UNC, an enforcer of the armistice that halted the war.
The issue was a key agenda item when Seoul's chief nuclear envoy, Noh Kyu-duk, and his U.S. and Japanese counterparts, Sung Kim and Takehiro Funakoshi, respectively -- met in Washington earlier this week to explore measures to incentivize the North to return to dialogue.
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
6. Kim’s missile launch shakes up end-of-war talks
Kim may be telegraphing his opposition to an end of war declaration unless he can set the conditions that will be advantageous to achieving the regime's objectives.
Kim’s missile launch shakes up end-of-war talks
North Korea’s latest projectile test strategically timed as Seoul presses Washington to sign a treaty ending the Korean War
SEOUL – Think the time is nigh for a declaration to formally end the Korean War? In that case, the timing is perfect to fire a submarine-launched ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan.
This at least would appear to be the thinking in Pyongyang. And that thinking is not as off-base as it may sound at first hearing. Indeed, the Kim regime is a past master at playing a complex diplomatic-strategic-economic power game that aims to leverage policy disconnects between Seoul, Tokyo and Washington.
Outgoing South Korean President Moon Jae-in is pushing a late-term plan to bring the 1950-53 Korean War to a formal end and talks to that end are expected to take place in Seoul this week with visiting envoys from Japan and the US.
Moon’s end-of-war plan, however, has gained minimal traction in a cynical Washington which seeks tangibles, not symbolisms.
Given this, impoverished North Korea – which may very well like to tap the prosperous South for economic aid – has excellent reasons to raise tensions and prod Washington to permit North-South engagement.
Here comes another one
North Korea test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLMB) from an east coast naval base into the Sea of Japan early Tuesday, South Korea’s military announced. It was not immediately clear if the weapon, which traveled approximately 450 kilometers, was fired from an actual submarine or from an underwater test barge, the military said.
North Korea has not tested an intercontinental ballistic missile – the kind of weapon that could deliver a nuclear warhead to the US – since 2017. However, it has been ramping up less provocative launches.
Tuesday’s event was the eighth in a series of tests of arms including short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles this year. SLMBs add yet another asset – and a mobile, survivable one – to the North’s already extensive missile armory.
What appears to be new North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles during a military parade in October 2020, marking the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Workers’ Party of Korea. Photo: AFP / KCNA
While none of these are likely to draw US fire and fury the way a nuclear or ICBM test would, they do make the world sit up and take notice of a state which otherwise has few diplomatic levers to pull.
Experts believe that North Korean missile tests have dual purposes: to test military engineering and to send political signals. In the latter sense, Tuesday’s timing looks especially stark.
On Monday in Washington, the leading nuclear envoys from South Korea, Japan and the US – respectively, Noh Kyu-duk, Takehiro Funakoshi and Sung Kim – had held trilateral meetings to try and thrash out a seamless North Korea strategy.
The end-of-war declaration featured in those discussions, and Kim said that he will be traveling to Seoul for further talks on an end-of-war declaration later this week.
The politics of war ending
Noh, the South Korean representative, may have a tough task ahead of him.
His boss, Moon, who has prioritized cross-DMZ engagement since taking office in 2017, ends his constitutionally mandated single term in office in May 2022. His aim of fostering inter-Korean amity during his term lies in tatters.
After promising early signs in 2018, a budding and unlikely bromance between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and then-US president Donald Trump evaporated after the failure of a 2019 summit in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Meetings between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un failed to reach an understanding between their countries. Photo: AFP / KCNA / KNS
With Seoul’s North Korea policy necessarily shackled to that of its powerful ally Washington, inter-Korean ties also turned chilly.
In what looks like a last-minute ploy to get rapprochement back on track, Moon, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 21 called for a formalized end to the Korean War. The conflict concluded with an armistice, rather than a peace treaty.
“He is thinking about his legacy, so the [presidential] Blue House is trying to achieve some milestones in the short time they have left,” said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based lecturer in international relations at Troy University.
“Those who believe in this kind of document or declaration believe it would further Moon’s vision of a peaceful Korea in Northeast Asia, and eventual economic and political integration.”
However, US President Joe Biden, who also addressed the UN, asked for “tangible commitments” from North Korea. That illustrates the policy disconnect dividing the two capitals.
One capital, which is quite naturally primarily focused on peninsula issues, believes that signing an end to the war is a major symbolic legacy and one that the next Seoul administration will be duty-bound to follow up on. That follow-up process could lead to further confidence-building dialog and engagement.
The other capital has to juggle a far wider range of foreign policy conundrums and is focused less on fraternal symbolism. Instead, it wants substantive talks on the holy grail of denuclearization.
This is the gap Noh has to bridge.
Seen in this light, North Korea – which early this month restored cross-border telecommunications hotlines and which has also called Moon’s UN end-of-war proposal “admirable” – may have offered Noh a helping hand.
South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in wants a formal peace treaty with the North to be his legacy. Photo: /AFP
“We all know North Korea is not very interested in ending the Korean War, they are interested in ending the so-called US hostile policy – the end of joint military exercises, sanctions relief, and so on,” Choi Jin-wook, who heads South Korea’s Center for Strategic and Cultural Studies, told Asia Times.
“It is South Korea – not China or North Korea or the US – that wants an end to the war, but the key is held by the US, so North Korea wants to raise tensions with the US.”
If, in order to ameliorate those tensions, the US gives South Korea the go-ahead to reduce tensions by initiating an end-of-war dialogue, North Korea could feasibly earn some kind of economic aid from Seoul that Washington cannot give, Choi explained.
Why end the war?
On the face of it, an agreement to formally end a war that de facto ended in 1953 looks like low-hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked.
As an agreement would be mere paper recognition of current realities, it represents light diplomatic lifting and presents no significant risk to any of the major parties. And it could indeed be an easy win that could kick-start the critical trust-building process, thereby leading to more substantive discussions and interactions in the future.
Moreover, it would offer the doves in Kim’s circle valuable ammunition to fire at the hawks – ie that with the war formally ended, the time would be ripe to pivot from arms production to more remunerative economic activities.
As a hedge against naysayers, proponents argue that an end to the war would have no impact on the stabilizing presence of US troops in South Korea. Nor would it alter the terms of the Seoul-Washington mutual defense treaty.
Yet experts are wary. Pinkston noted a peace treaty would not over-ride the central goal of the North Korean polity – a goal that led to the North’s invasion of the South in 1950.
“From my perspective, a peace treaty would have to mean an abandonment and termination of the Korean Revolution, so we would need to see a written statement in Korean Worker Party by-laws, and announcements in state media,” he said. “The completion of the Korean Revolution means unifying the entire country under party rule.”
Pinkston called this end game Pyongyang’s “core issue,” suggesting that those who promote a peace treaty – liberal political players in South Korea, and activists and academics in the United States – respectively ignore, or are unaware of.
Absent action on this core issue, a peace treaty is just a fantasy, Pinkston insisted. “Anyone who says it is possible is disconnected to the North Korean mindset. It is inconsistent with the North Korean world view – it is absurd.”
7. North Korea's missile launch leads to U.N. Security Council emergency meeting
It will be interesting to see what the UN Security Council does about this. I doubt it will be much because China and Russia will prevent any moves against north Korea. We will not see a repeat of 2017 when the UN Security Council unanimously approved (at least the P5 did) north Korean sanctions.
North Korea's missile launch leads to U.N. Security Council emergency meeting
Newsweek · by Daniel Villarreal · October 19, 2021
The United Nations Security Council has announced that it will hold an emergency meeting following North Korea's latest missile launch.
Images provided by North Korea showed what they said was a missile being launched from a submarine, CBS Evening News reported. The launch would represent a step forward in the country's weapons development.
Its launch may have been timed to coincide with the arrival of U.S. President Joe Biden's North Korean envoy to the region. The envoy will reportedly meet with the United States' East Asian allies to discuss plans to halt North Korea's nuclear development, according to the aforementioned news program.
In the early hours of Tuesday morning, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said North Korea fired off two ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. The launch violated security sanctions placed on North Korea by the United Nations.
An emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council will convene after a recent missile launch by North Korea. In this photo, people watch a TV at the Seoul Railway Station showing a file image of a North Korean missile launch, on September 15, 2021, in Seoul, South Korea. Chung Sung-Jun/Getty
North Korea has conducted six missile tests since January. In doing so, the country has violated multiple United Nations weapons sanctions banning it from developing ballistic missiles, according to The New York Times.
North Korea has said that it is developing its weapons defense program in order to deal with a possible U.S. military threat. The U.S. has said it has no hostile intentions towards North Korea.
U.S. President Joe Biden has warned of "responses" if North Korea continues to escalate tensions in the region, but he hasn't publicly issued any in response to their recent missile tests.
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has warned that North Korea wants to launch a long-range missile in the coming year. Such a launch would represent a major security risk to South Korea, Japan and other U.S. allies in eastern Asia. North Korean leaders ultimately want to develop nuclear arms, something they see as "critical to regime survival," the report said.
The U.N. Security Council held another emergency meeting on October 1 to discuss North Korea's recent missile tests.
In an October 3 letter to the U.N., North Korea accused the Security Council of having a "double-dealing standard" when it comes to weapons testing. The letter criticized the fact that the U.N. allows similar missile tests by the U.S. and its allies.
By the end of 2017, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un claimed that his country had the ability to launch a nuclear strike against the continental United States. However, international security experts have said the country is still testing its ballistic missiles while it refining its capacity to make weapons-grade nuclear materials.
Newsweek contacted the U.N. for comment.
Newsweek · by Daniel Villarreal · October 19, 2021
8. US remains prepared to engage with DPRK after missile test: White House
Chinese propaganda repeating a US talking point and concludes with Kim Jong-un's talking points.
US remains prepared to engage with DPRK after missile test: White House - China.org.cn
视频播放位置
Photo provided by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Oct. 12, 2021 shows a defense development exhibition held to mark the 76th founding anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party in Pyongyang, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). [Photo/KCNA via Xinhua]
The White House said on Tuesday that the United States remains prepared to engage with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) after its latest missile test.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said Tuesday that the DPRK had fired a short-range ballistic missile into the eastern waters. DPRK's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported early Wednesday local time that the country test-fired a new-type submarine-launched ballistic missile on Tuesday.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters during a daily briefing that the United States condemns the missile launch while noting "these launches also underscore the urgent need for dialogue and diplomacy."
"Our offer remains to meet anywhere, any time without preconditions. We're also closely consulting with allies in this," she added. "We remain prepared to engage in diplomacy with the DPRK."
Also on Tuesday, U.S. Special Representative for the DPRK Sung Kim held a trilateral meeting with his counterparts from South Korea and Japan over the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, according to a statement issued by the State Department.
"Kim emphasized U.S. condemnation of the DPRK's October 19 ballistic missile launch, which violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions, and called on the DPRK to refrain from further provocations and engage in sustained and substantive dialogue," said the statement.
The U.S. Joe Biden administration has repeatedly suggested that it seeks to engage with Pyongyang over the denuclearization issue but has showed no willingness to ease sanctions.
DPRK top leader Kim Jong Un said last week that there has been "no behavioral ground" to believe the recent U.S. signaling that Washington is not hostile to Pyongyang, slamming South Korea for its "double standards" to continue to boost military capabilities.
Kim, however, noted that the DPRK's enemy is a "war itself, not a certain country or forces like South Korea and the United States."
9. FM Chung says N. Korea sanctions relief can be an option if it accepts dialogue offer
Comply with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
We should not lift sanctions simply in return for a promise of talks or for talks alone. The north must take substantive steps toward denuclearization to have the nuclear sanctions lifted. It must cease proliferation and illicit activities to have sanctions covering proliferation and illicit activities lifted. It must cease human rights abuses and crimes against humanity to have human rights sanctions lifted. Lifting sanctions should not be a concession or a bargaining chip. The regime's dangerous, illegal, and horrific malign activities must be halted to receive sanctions relief.
(2nd LD) FM Chung says N. Korea sanctions relief can be an option if it accepts dialogue offer | Yonhap News Agency
(ATTN: UPDATES with foreign ministry's response on UN security council meeting in 15th para)
By Kim Eun-jung
SEOUL, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's recent missile test underscores the need for engaging the reclusive state and sanctions relief can be considered as part of incentives to bring it back to the negotiating table, Seoul's top diplomat said Wednesday.
Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong was speaking at a parliamentary audit session, hours after the North said it has successfully test-fired a new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on Tuesday.
"We should take some actions to prevent North Korea from further developing its nuclear and missile capabilities," Chung said. "Sanctions relief can be considered as part of efforts, on condition that the North accepts the dialogue proposal."
North Korea has faced worsening economic woes due to continued U.N. sanctions implemented in response to its nuclear and missile tests, as well as COVID-19 lockdowns and bad weather.
When asked whether Washington is on the same page with Seoul for the conditions-based easing of sanctions, Chung said, "The U.S. has consistently made it clear that it can discuss any issues at the negotiating table if the North returns to talks."
U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Sung Kim on Tuesday reaffirmed that the U.S. remains open to dialogue with Pyongyang but made it clear that the Joe Biden administration will keep sanctions in place until the North makes concrete steps toward denuclearization.
Chung expressed hope that President Moon Jae-in's proposal to formally end the 1950-53 Korean War could provide the much-needed momentum for the stalled denuclearization talks with Pyongyang.
"The end-of-war declaration is one of several options to restart the peace process. It aims to build trust to create an atmosphere for dialogue," Chung said. "It is the first gateway for the peace process on the Korean Peninsula and an essential step."
The North's latest show of force came amid a flurry of diplomatic activities to resume the long-stalled denuclearization talks between Washington and Pyongyang.
The Moon Jae-in administration has been making last-ditch efforts for a breakthrough in the Korea peace process that lost steam with a no-deal Hanoi summit in 2019 between Kim and then U.S. President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said Washington has "directly" reached out to Pyongyang, reaffirming the Joe Biden government's willingness to hold talks without preconditions.
"We have reached out directly to Pyongyang and stand ready to meet without preconditions, and as we have said publicly on multiple occasions, the United States does not harbour hostile intentions," Sherman said in a virtual address to Korea Society's annual gala held in New York.
She condemned the North's latest missile test as "a violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions."
While the U.N. Security Council is set to hold an emergency closed-door meeting on North Korea's SLBM test on Wednesday (New York time), Seoul's foreign ministry said it has been closely communicating with the main council members to discuss the current situation on the Korean Peninsula and appropriate responses.
Regarding the stand-offs between Seoul and Tokyo, meanwhile, Chung said the government remains committed to efforts for mending bilateral ties in cooperation with the administration of new Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The minister vowed to step up diplomatic consultations to seek "a realistic, reasonable solution" to protracted disputes over shared history, including wartime forced labor.
Japan imposed export curbs against the South in 2019 in retaliation for South Korean Supreme Court rulings that Japanese firms should pay compensation to forced labor victims.
Japan has claimed all reparation issues stemming from its 1910-45 colonization of Korea were settled under a 1965 treaty that normalized relations between the two countries, and urged the South to come up with acceptable solutions.
ejkim@yna.co.kr
(END)
10. New Short-Range Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Tested By North Korea (Updated)
New Short-Range Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Tested By North Korea (Updated)
The missile appears to be very similar to a mysterious short-range type that Kim Jong Un recently showed off at an arms showcase in Pyongyang.
North Korean state media
SHARE
North Korea says it has tested a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, or SLBM, which it claims has significant maneuvering capabilities. The existence of the weapon in question, which is significantly smaller than previous North Korean SLBM designs, looks to be one that was only publicly disclosed at an exhibition in Pyongyang last week. That weapon had already drawn considerable interest after that event, with there being some debate over whether it was an old, but previously unseen design or a new one that might be about to be tested.
The launch occurred on Oct. 19, 2021, and took place near North Korea's main submarine hub at Sinpo on the country's eastern coast. South Korean media reports said that the missile reportedly flew between 430 and 450 kilometers, or 267 to 280 miles, reaching an apogee of 60 kilometers, or around 37 miles, before landing in the East Sea. South Korean officials had earlier said that they believed the test had involved an SLBM, while their American counterparts had stated they were aware of the launch, but declined to say what type of missile might have been fired. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida also reportedly said that his country had assessed that the North Koreans had launched two missiles, which does not appear to have been the case.
North Korean state media
One of a series of pictures North Korean state media released of the SLBM test on Oct. 19, 2021.
North Korean state media
North Korean state media
North Korean state media
North Korean state media
An example, or possible mockup, of the submarine-launched missile that was tested earlier today at an arms exhibition in Pyongyang last week.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea Defense Science Institute conducted a test launch of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile on the 19th," according to an official announcement about the test from North Korea's state media. "With the pride and honor of successfully launching the first submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile five years ago and successfully launching a new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile in the 'Hero ship August 24', which demonstrated the military strength of the Republic, it is proud and proud of its loyalty to the Party Central Committee. said to have reported."
It's not entirely clear how the missile in question was tested. North Korean state media released a picture of the country's lone Gorae class submarine, which has been used for SLBM tests in the past, surfacing along with the pictures of the as-yet-unnamed weapon apparently being launched from underwater. The photograph of the submarine appeared to show its launch hatch in its sail open. At the same time, satellite imagery had also indicated that a barge at Sinpo that has been used for underwater SLBM test launches in the past might have been out to sea on Oct. 18.
North Korean state media
A picture of North Korea's Gorae class submarine that was released with the other pictures of this latest SLBM test, which appears to show the submarine's launch hatch open.
"The Academy of Defense Science announced that the new type of submarine-launched ballistic missile with many advanced control guidance technologies, including lateral maneuvers and glide jump maneuvers, will greatly contribute to the advancement of the nation's defense technology," North Korea state media added.
The North Koreans did not provide any additional details or imagery to substantiate those claims about the missile's performance. The mention of a "glide jump maneuver" sounds likely to refer to what are often described as “porpoise” or “skip-glide" maneuvers, wherein the entire weapon or a separate reentry vehicle brakes by tipping its nose up, creating an irregular, step-down trajectory during the terminal phase of flight. This can offer a way to make course corrections, as well as to extend the weapon's overall range, and to simply make it more difficult to intercept.
Chinese internet
A graphic associated with a Chinese short-range anti-ship ballistic missile that depicts a “porpoise” or “skip-glide" trajectory in the terminal state of flight. This appears to be the kind of maneuvering capability, in broad strokes, that North Korea claims its latest SLBM possesses.
A maneuvering re-entry vehicle of some kind that detaches from the rest of the missile in flight might help explain Prime Minister Kishida's statement that Japanese authorities had detected two missiles, rather than one, but that comment could also have just been in error. The North Koreans have publicly shown ground-launched ballistic missiles with what appear to be maneuvering warheads in the past.
Otherwise, this test would seem to confirm initial analysis that this missile has relatively short-range. The fact that the official North Korean state media release does not appear to describe this weapon as "strategic" raises the possibility that it could be conventionally armed or at least have the option of carrying a non-nuclear warhead. A conventionally-armed SLBM, just like one South Korea recently tested, could be valuable for striking hardened, high-value targets.
As The War Zone already noted when the missile first emerged publicly last week, its small size could allow for smaller North Korean submarines to be converted to fire it. It could offer larger North Korean types, such as the Gorae class boat or a Romeo class diesel-electric attack submarine that is being converted into a type capable of firing ballistic missiles, the ability to carry more such weapons at once, a well.
North Korean state media
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and other officials seen in 2019 in front of a Romeo class submarine that is under conversion into a type capable of carrying ballistic missiles.
A more limited range compared to other North Korean SLBMs would not necessarily be a factor for engaging targets in South Korea or even possibly Japan. Multiple small submarines equipped with shorter-range SLBMs would enable more survivable strikes on various targets from different vectors, presenting additional challenges for the country's opponents.
Regardless of the weapon's capabilities, a test of a new North Korean SLBM is significant. This is the first North Korean SLBM test, at least that we know about, since 2019. The country also unveiled another new SLBM design, identified as the Pukguksong-5, which is larger than previous types, in January, but there are no reports that it has been tested to date.
This latest North Korean SLBM launch also came after Sung Kim, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea, met with his South Korean counterpart Noh Kyu Duk, in Washington, D.C. Kim is due to travel to South Korea later this week where he is expected to talk further with officials there about potential ways to restart talks with the regime in Pyongyang on various issues, including its nuclear weapons and missile programs.
"The United States condemns the DPRK's ballistic missile launch. These launches are a violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and are a threat to the region," the U.S. State Department had said in an earlier statement to South Korea's Yonhap news agency. "We call on the DPRK to refrain from further provocations and engage in sustained and substantive dialogue. Our commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remains ironclad."
North Korean officials have recently shown some interest in talks, at least superficially, especially regarding humanitarian aid and potential sanctions relief. At the same time, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made clear at the arms expo last week that his regime sees its continued arms buildup, and the testing that goes with it, such as this latest SLBM launch, as its fundamental right in the face of what he said was South Korean and American aggression.
UPDATE:
Hi-resolution images have been released. You can see the large endplate being blown off in the upper left image:
KCNA
Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com
Don't forget to sign up Your Email Address
11. N. Korea plans to send around 1,000 workers to Russia as loggers
Violation of UN Security Council resolutions? Russia is complicit.
Note the final comment here:
Moreover, the authorities are actively exploiting workers sent overseas to secure foreign exchange, raising the percentage of their earnings they must pay to the ruling party in the name of “loyalty funds” by 30 to 55%.
One defector who worked as a logger in Russia said the dispatch of over 1,000 people as loggers suggests the authorities intend to send what amounts to an “entire company” overseas. “A considerable amount of foreign exchange will flow into the hands of the authorities, too,” he added.
N. Korea plans to send around 1,000 workers to Russia as loggers - Daily NK
The authorities plan to send them in two or three batches, the first of which is scheduled to depart in early-to-mid November
Faced with foreign exchange shortages, North Korean authorities reportedly plan to send a new batch of workers overseas. Pyongyang plans to send over 1,000 workers within the year, with authorities seemingly unconcerned with international sanctions on the country.
According to a Daily NK source in Pyongyang on Tuesday, North Korean authorities are currently training the workers before their departure to Russia next month.
The authorities plan to send them in two or three batches, the first of which is scheduled to depart in early-to-mid November.
These workers will be sent to logging camps. Logging requires frozen ground, so authorities plan to complete the dispatch of the workers before the winter begins.
UN Security Council Resolution 2397, adopted in December 2017, called for the repatriation of all North Korean nationals earning income abroad by December 2019.
However, North Korean authorities have not been repatriating North Korean workers overseas since closing the nation’s borders in January 2020, ostensibly due to COVID-19 concerns.
On Oct. 4, the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea released a report by an experts’ panel that examined the enforcement of sanctions on North Korea during the six-month period between February and August and issued related recommendations.
The panel said though North Korea had to repatriate all its workers overseas by Dec. 22, 2019, in line with the UN Security Council resolution, some remained overseas, earning foreign exchange in sectors such as IT.
A timber truck in Russia. / Image: Wikimedia Commons
In particular, the report said North Korea’s border closure likely provides opportunities to North Korean workers overseas to extend their stays and continue earning foreign exchange.
This means that the North Korean authorities could be using the border closure to expand foreign currency earnings through its laborers overseas.
In fact, North Korean authorities reportedly sent new workers to Russia, Mongolia, and elsewhere in the first half of the year, despite the protracted border closure.
On the other hand, North Korea did select some workers in China to repatriate as part of efforts to replace them, but none have returned to the country so far.
That is to say, North Korea is essentially sending new workers without repatriating or replacing workers currently overseas.
Moreover, the authorities are actively exploiting workers sent overseas to secure foreign exchange, raising the percentage of their earnings they must pay to the ruling party in the name of “loyalty funds” by 30 to 55%.
One defector who worked as a logger in Russia said the dispatch of over 1,000 people as loggers suggests the authorities intend to send what amounts to an “entire company” overseas. “A considerable amount of foreign exchange will flow into the hands of the authorities, too,” he added.
Please direct any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.
12. N Korea rattles from walking skeletons, not sabers
This is what I am very worried about. The collapse of the north Korean People's Army or instability within the nKPA could have catastrophic effects. This could lead to internal instability and conflict (implosion) that could spill outside the borders of north Korea (explosion).
I am more worried about internal instability than I am about the test launch of an SLBM. Are we working on updating contingency plans?
N Korea rattles from walking skeletons, not sabers
Regime worries about 'frailty' and significant numbers of soldiers missing training due to serious malnutrition
It’s probably no coincidence that North Korea’s test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile on Tuesday came just as the country’s military was reported to have begun investigating soldiers’ “nutritional status.”
After all, if the “human bullets” who have vowed to protect the leader are getting so few calories it affects their readiness to fight, it makes sense to distract enemies from that sign of national weakness and focus on a new and shiny, non-human projectile that will give the enemies something to worry about.
Seoul-based Daily NK reported that it had learned from “a source in the North Korean military” that leader Kim Jong Un “issued an order on October 9 calling for improvements in ‘logistics and soldiers’ health’ during October and November.” This is the period when the military is preparing for the winter months and for winter training.
The General Political Bureau and Ministry of Defense in response to Kim’s order are investigating not only wintertime food supplies for the Korean People’s Army (KPA), but also “the state of ‘frailty’ among soldiers due to malnutrition,” the specialty news organization said.
In May, Kim ordered the “establishment of convalescent hospitals to treat soldiers suffering from malnutrition,” Daily NK said, following reports of “significant numbers of soldiers missing training due to serious malnutrition issues.”
While politicians and the public in South Korea and the United States may be distracted by the drumbeat of weapons tests, intelligence analysts are aware of Pyongyang’s problem of nutrition-challenged soldiers. Here’s a passage from a report just out this month from the US Defense Intelligence Agency:
Historically, KPA service members were afforded better rations than the general population, but this trend has declined precipitously since the mid-1990s, and most KPA conscripts now are subject to the same deprivation as the general population outside Pyongyang. Former KPA service members who have defected to the South describe malnutrition and harsh service conditions. Because of North Korea’s chronic food insecurity, military personnel are periodically diverted away from standard duties to plant or harvest crops.
Over the next few decades, the effects of the 1994-97 famine will continue to affect the population that constitutes the majority of the KPA reserve manpower pool. North Korean children born in the 1990s suffered malnutrition, which resulted in declining physical development, stunted growth, and mental underdevelopment. This trend suggests that some number of KPA conscripts in the reserves will function at lower levels of effectiveness due to mental and physical impairments.
Unity’s hard when you don’t have enough to eat. North Korean propaganda poster depicts workers and soldiers with a slogan about prosperous socialism, Pyongan Province, North Korea. Photo: AFP / Eric Lafforgue / Hans Lucas
Discharged – and disgruntled – service personnel are blamed for a crime wave, according to AsiaPress/Rimjin-Gang, an Osaka, Japan-based specialty North Korea news organization:
There have been many cases of discharged military personnel who were deployed to rural areas (after completing their military service this spring) committing violent incidents and robberies in urban areas, and the security authorities consider them to be an important target for special attention.
The discharged soldiers have been strongly dissatisfied because they were “forcibly assigned” to cooperative farms, the poorest of all occupations, after serving eight to 10 years in the military for the nation.
From the east-coast industrial city of Chongjin, AsiaPress reported:
In the evening, two men wearing inspection team armbands falsely accused a man of not properly wearing a mask and took him into an alley to inspect his luggage, before beating him up and stealing his bicycle, watch and rice. The inspection team is an organization dedicated to enforcing social order. It is composed of civilians.
In a separate incident, a woman working as a seafood wholesaler was attacked by a group of men on her way home from Songpyong Port and robbed of her bicycle, money and watch. Her husband, who had accompanied her just in case of danger, had his arm broken. The attackers were most likely discharged military personnel.
13. Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Could Let North Korea Off Easy
From one of the few scholars and analysts who is expert on both bucear weapons (as well as chemical and biological) and on north Korea.
Conclusion:
The administration has its work cut out for it in updating the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. Against growing North Korean WMD threats, additional U.S. nuclear deterrence declaratory strategy, backed up by appropriate nuclear weapon capabilities and planning, may be needed. North Korea may currently perceive gaps in U.S. deterrents against North Korean biological, chemical, and limited nuclear weapons use. Increased U.S. nuclear deterrence might also be likely required to reassure U.S. allies in South Korea and Japan that they do not need their own nuclear weapons. If so, the role of U.S. nuclear weapons could possibly need to expand and not be reduced. Given potential risks to deterrence against North Korea and assurance of allies, it will be interesting to see how the NPR will attempt to accomplish the objectives of the U.S. Interim National Security Strategy, particularly whether it will pursue a reduced role for nuclear weapons.
Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Could Let North Korea Off Easy
Against growing North Korean WMD threats, additional U.S. nuclear deterrence declaratory strategy, backed up by appropriate nuclear weapon capabilities and planning, may be needed.
Editor’s note: In late September, The National Interest organized a symposium on nuclear policy, nonproliferation, and arms control under the Biden administration. A variety of scholars were asked the following question: “Should Joe Biden seize the opportunity of his administration’s Nuclear Posture Review to redefine the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security planning? How should U.S. policy change to address the proliferation threats that the United States is facing?” The following article is one of their responses:
According to President Joe Biden’s Interim National Security Strategy issued in March, the United States “will take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, while ensuring our strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.” Biden believes “that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring—and, if necessary, retaliating against—a nuclear attack.” But many U.S. officials believe that a deterrent threat can be ineffective unless military plans and capabilities are prepared to exercise that threat. A U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) underway will examine these issues.
To counter that, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review said that “any North Korean nuclear attack against the United States or its allies and partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime. There is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive.” This threat appears intended to deter major North Korean nuclear weapon use. But is it an adequate deterrent? Would it deter North Korean nuclear weapon use if Kim Jong-un thought his regime faced internal rebellion? And what about the future? North Korea is aggressively increasing its nuclear forces. Would this threat be credible in deterring various kinds of North Korean nuclear weapon use?
Some deterrent threats are just that—just threats, without a plan, capability, and/or will to execute the threat. The fallacy of such an approach has been recognized for centuries: Roman general Vegetius wrote: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Deterrents need to be real, well thought out, and announced.
To execute the threatened retaliation against North Korea and destroy the Kim regime, the 2018 NPR says that the United States will have to destroy its multiple hardened, deeply buried command-and-control facilities. These are “beyond the reach of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be held at risk of destruction only with nuclear weapons,” according to a 2005 National Academies study. Thus while the 2018 NPR did not say so directly, it implied a commitment of a U.S. nuclear attack to destroy the North Korean regime should it use any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies.
But would a U.S. president do so? If we assume there are five or more of these hardened and deeply buried bunkers, destroying all of them would likely require the United States to use ten to twenty-five nuclear weapons, potentially causing extensive collateral damage in the North. Would a U.S. president do that if, say, North Korea detonated a single nuclear EMP burst against South Korea that damaged electronic systems and killed just a few people? Does the United States also need a separate, proportional deterrent against such limited North Korean nuclear weapon attacks, as required by international law?
In addition, the United States currently has no declaratory deterrent against North Korean chemical and biological weapon use if the North decides to invade South Korea. Instead, U.S. experts usually say that even with the use of these weapons, North Korea cannot defeat the Republic of Korea (ROK)/U.S. alliance. But would North Korea be so heavily invested in these weapons if it thought otherwise? Many of my ROK colleagues worry that unless the United States poses a nuclear retaliatory threat against North Korean use of any form of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), North Korea will not be deterred from chemical and biological weapon use.
Finally, the Interim National Security Strategy seeks to keep U.S. extended deterrence—and especially the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” component of extended deterrence—strong and credible. But U.S. assurance of its ROK ally could have been weakened by a combination of former President Donald Trump’s “America first” policy, the U.S. abandonment of Afghanistan, and the U.S. inability to rein in North Korea’s efforts to produce long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. Although North Korea does not yet appear to have an operational intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, there is already active discussion of South Korea needing its own nuclear weapons or South Korea needing redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Korea.
The administration has its work cut out for it in updating the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review. Against growing North Korean WMD threats, additional U.S. nuclear deterrence declaratory strategy, backed up by appropriate nuclear weapon capabilities and planning, may be needed. North Korea may currently perceive gaps in U.S. deterrents against North Korean biological, chemical, and limited nuclear weapons use. Increased U.S. nuclear deterrence might also be likely required to reassure U.S. allies in South Korea and Japan that they do not need their own nuclear weapons. If so, the role of U.S. nuclear weapons could possibly need to expand and not be reduced. Given potential risks to deterrence against North Korea and assurance of allies, it will be interesting to see how the NPR will attempt to accomplish the objectives of the U.S. Interim National Security Strategy, particularly whether it will pursue a reduced role for nuclear weapons.
Bruce W. Bennett is a senior international/defense researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.
Image: Reuters.
14. It’s Time for Biden to End the Korean War
I begin most of my lectures on north Korea with the following talking points. And this is my response to Ms Lee's proposal for an end of war declaration.
- I support peace on the Korean peninsula
- I support a diplomatic solution to the north Korean nuclear threat
- I support ROK engagement with the north
- I do not support a weakening of the ROK and ROK/US defensive capabilities
- I believe there cannot be success for US, ROK, and Japanese interests without strong ROK/US and Japan/US alliances
- Despite the above I think we have to accept that north Korea may have a continued hostile strategy and therefore while we prioritize diplomacy we have to remain prepared for the worst cases. I hope I am wrong here and that Kim Jong-un will dismantle his nuclear weapons and seek peaceful co-existence. But I do not think that is likely so we need a superior political warfare and military strategy to achieve peace by settling the "Korea"question" once and for all.
- There are no ”experts” on north Korea – it is the most difficult intelligence target – the proverbial “hard target”
- At best we are students trying to understand the nature of the regime and the security problem on the Korean peninsula
- Anything I say can and should be challenged
- However, now that I am retired I am no longer constrained by doctrine, funding, or a chain of command so I can tell you how I really feel
But we should ask a few questions:
Does Kim Jong-un even want one? (yes if he can turn it to his advantage for his political warfare strategy, if not the right conditions he will not likely support this)
Will this enhance the security of the ROK? If so how? (with no reduction in frontline conventional forces the north will still pose an existential threat to the South).
How will this advance ROK/US alliance interests in any significant or meaningful war?
What evidence is there that this will jump start denuclearization negotiations and north-South engagement?
It’s Time for Biden to End the Korean War
An expert's point of view on a current event.
The U.S. president should ignore fearmongering and build on a real opportunity.
By Jessica J. Lee, a senior research fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
North Korean army soldiers wearing masks look at the South Korean side in Panmunjom, South Korea, on Sept. 16, 2020. Park Tae-Hyun/Korea-Pool/Getty Images
South Korea’s National Security Advisor Suh Hoon was in Washington last week to discuss President Moon Jae-in’s proposal to formally end the 1950-1953 Korean War. Seoul’s suggestion presents an opportunity for the Biden administration to dispel fear-driven narratives about ending America’s longest “forever war” and instead chart a forward-looking vision for the Korean Peninsula.
An end-of-war declaration is a political statement declaring an end to hostilities between enemies of war. It is a unilateral expression and has no legal status, though some consider it a preamble to a legally binding peace treaty to replace the Armistice Agreement that originally ended the fighting in 1953.
As Stephen Biegun, who served as deputy secretary of state and special representative for North Korea in the Trump administration, recently noted, an end-of-war declaration could be part of a “package” of offers to incentivize North Korea’s cooperation on denuclearization. A peace regime would institutionalize the peace process by establishing norms and rules of engagement, with the goal of proactively addressing the underlying issues that might motivate the North to attack the South.
South Korea’s National Security Advisor Suh Hoon was in Washington last week to discuss President Moon Jae-in’s proposal to formally end the 1950-1953 Korean War. Seoul’s suggestion presents an opportunity for the Biden administration to dispel fear-driven narratives about ending America’s longest “forever war” and instead chart a forward-looking vision for the Korean Peninsula.
An end-of-war declaration is a political statement declaring an end to hostilities between enemies of war. It is a unilateral expression and has no legal status, though some consider it a preamble to a legally binding peace treaty to replace the Armistice Agreement that originally ended the fighting in 1953.
As Stephen Biegun, who served as deputy secretary of state and special representative for North Korea in the Trump administration, recently noted, an end-of-war declaration could be part of a “package” of offers to incentivize North Korea’s cooperation on denuclearization. A peace regime would institutionalize the peace process by establishing norms and rules of engagement, with the goal of proactively addressing the underlying issues that might motivate the North to attack the South.
Because this would be a lengthy process, Washington and Seoul should discuss what ending the war would mean in the short, medium, and long term, and how to manage risks associated with it. Ideally, such consultation would take place before moving from an end-of-war declaration to a peace treaty replacing the Armistice Agreement.
Unfortunately, Washington does not yet appear willing to consider Seoul’s proposal with the sense of urgency and seriousness it deserves. Instead, the Biden administration has been largely silent on matters related to formally ending the Korean War, which has created a vacuum that is being filled by more extremist voices seeking to prevent serious debates from taking place.
For example, some in the United States contend that North Korea’s underlying motive in improving ties with South Korea is to eventually invade it. Such a narrative ignores the possibility of peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas. Sydney Seiler, a national intelligence officer for North Korea at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, recently made the case against the North in an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
To experts like Seiler, the United States and the United States alone can guarantee peace and stability on the peninsula. No other power, including South Korea, can protect the Korean Peninsula from war. This mentality necessitates a permanent U.S. military presence in South Korea and downplays the South’s ability to defend itself. As the dominant security power, the United States would have the ultimate say in managing the North Korea issue, and South Korea would be forever beholden to America to manage North Korea’s nuclear threat.
This fear-based narrative is also reflected in nongovernmental campaigns. Last month, a new group called the One Korea Network and the Korean Conservative Political Action Conference (KCPAC, also known as CPAC Korea) launched a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal claiming that a formal end to the Korean War, as proposed in a proposed U.S. congressional bill, “potentially undercuts the US-South Korea alliance and … increases the likelihood of war.”
The One Korea Network was also behind a digital billboard in Times Square claiming the bill “Benefit[s] North Korea and China.” In one statement, KCPAC describes the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan and Vietnam as “reckless” and equates a pro-diplomacy bill, the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act, with “step towards driving the Korean Peninsula into war once again.” According to KCPAC’s website, it intends to work closely with the American Conservative Union on Korean Peninsula issues. KCPAC was one of the top sponsors of the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference in the United States. In addition to opposing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act, KCPAC has attempted to undermine confidence in elections in South Korea.
Rather than letting fear close off possibilities of building a more stable Korean Peninsula, the Biden administration should articulate a positive-sum, forward-looking U.S. agenda on the peninsula, starting with a formal end-of-war declaration.
The U.S.-South Korea alliance is strong and well positioned for this diplomatic task. According to a report released last month by the Asan Institute, a South Korean think tank, over 78 percent of survey respondents support either maintaining or strengthening the U.S.-South Korean relationship. The American public is similarly positively disposed to South Korea, creating a real opening for the Biden administration to formally close the Cold War-era chapter of Korean history. The ambiguous status quo endangers U.S. interests in the region by making conflicts, including accidental ones, more likely.
Second, there is growing support within the American public for diplomacy as the main foreign-policy tool. According to a recent Eurasia Group Foundation survey, 58 percent of Americans want to increase diplomatic engagement with the world, with only 21 percent favoring decreasing engagement. Seventy percent agree with the statement: “The US should negotiate directly with adversaries to try to avoid military confrontation, even if those adversaries are human rights abusers, dictators, or home to terrorist organizations.”
Additionally, the Eurasia Group Foundation survey found that young people between the ages of 18 and 29 were especially wary of war. Sixty-two percent believe the United States should respond to China’s rise by decreasing (not increasing) its military footprint in Asia, a 7 percent increase from last year. Nearly half of the young people surveyed thought that “peace is best achieved by keeping a focus on domestic needs” while avoiding unnecessary interventions beyond the borders of the United States. After watching the U.S. government spend $8 trillion in its post-9/11 wars, young people understandably want to reduce the chance of a war whose cost they will have to bear.
A peace process should be supported by Republicans who generally supported former President Donald Trump’s unconventional diplomacy with North Korea, even if in large part because he was their party’s standard-bearer. The same Republicans who applauded Trump’s outreach to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un should back his successor Joe Biden’s efforts to improve relations, even if their instinct will be to lambaste the Democratic president at every turn.
As Republican Sen. Tom Cotton noted after the 2018 Singapore summit between Trump and Kim, seeing the two together was “not a pretty sight, but it’s the necessary part of a job to protect Americans.” Members of Congress should give Biden a chance to implement what Trump agreed to in the 2018 joint statement with Kim, and Biden should remind Republicans that the “establishment of new U.S.–DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” was envisioned by a Republican president.
If the Biden administration declares the Korean War over and states its intent to formalize a peace treaty, American, South Korean, and North Korean officials should quickly move toward working-level talks to form a road map for peace and denuclearization. These negotiations would involve issues such as security guarantees and removal of United Nations sanctions in exchange for North Korea’s declaration of capability and facilities to manufacture and deliver nuclear weapons, as well as dismantlement of nuclear facilities.
In 1952, then-Republican presidential nominee Dwight D. Eisenhower laid out his plan for ending the Korean War: “To forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war—until that job is honorably done. That job requires a personal trip to Korea. I shall make that trip. Only in that way could I learn how best to serve the American people in the cause of peace.” Seven decades later, Biden has the chance to fulfill Eisenhower’s pledge.
North Korea provides an opportunity for Biden to practice what he described at this year’s U.N. General Assembly as “relentless diplomacy,” one that may inspire other stakeholders to eschew destabilizing behavior in favor of a more constructive relationship. He should not be afraid to seize this moment.
Jessica J. Lee is a senior research fellow on East Asia at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
15. Two Koreas showcase weapons tech despite attempts for talks
I would not characterize this as an arms race and something that can be "halted" by arms control negotiations. The ROK is enhancing its defense capabilities through normal military modernization. The north is developing a range of capabilities to support its political warfare strategy and blackmail diplomacy , maintain control over the Korean people in the north but focusing on the fantasy threat from the South, for support to proliferation to countries and groups in conflict zones, and for its own warfighting when the conditions call for the use of force against the South to try to ensure regime survival through domination of the Korean peninsula.
Two Koreas showcase weapons tech despite attempts for talks
President Moon Jae-in takes off a flight helmet as he sits in an FA-50 light combat aircraft at Seoul Airbase in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, Wednesday, during an event at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition 2021. Yonhap By Nam Hyun-woo
The two Koreas are flexing their respective military muscles by each showcasing their latest developments in weapons technology, despite growing efforts to induce North Korea to return to denuclearization talks.
President Moon Jae-in paid a visit to the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition 2021, Wednesday, which kicked off a day earlier at Seoul Airbase in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, and stressed the importance of defense technologies for national security.
"A strong defense capability always has its goal in keeping peace," Moon said during an event at the exhibition. "South Korea will pursue a smart military, based on cutting-edge technologies, and join global efforts to maintain peace."
During his speech, Moon stressed the importance of South Korea's recent development of the KF-21 Boramae fighter jet and the Nuri space launch vehicle, which are touted as the most recent results of the country's efforts to improve its defense technology.
President Moon Jae-in speaks during an event at the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition 2021 at Seoul Airbase in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, Wednesday. Yonhap The Nuri is a domestically developed rocket that can place an over 1-ton satellite into orbit. This is expected to give South Korea the ability to launch military satellites without the assistance of other countries. The rocket is scheduled for a test-flight Thursday, and if the launch is successful Korea will become the seventh country to possess a domestically developed launch vehicle capable of placing an over 1-ton satellite into orbit.
Since the Nuri uses the same technology as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), there has been speculation that it could be used as a weapon, despite denials from the government.
"The Nuri is liquid-fueled, which means it takes a long time to fuel it, thus it is incorrect to allege that the rocket could become the basis for an ICBM," a source in the administration said.
A ballistic missile allegedly being launched from a submarine in waters off the North, Tuesday, is seen in this photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, the following day. Yonhap Moon's appearance at the defense exhibition came hours after North Korea announced the missile it test fired Tuesday was a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).
North Korea's Korean Central News Agency said Wednesday that the country had test fired "a new type of submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile" from "the 8.24 Yongung ship from which the first submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile was successfully launched five years ago." The 8.24 Yongung is a submarine that North Korea used to test its Pukguksong-1 SLBM in 2016.
The agency also said the missile had "lots of advanced control guidance technologies including flank mobility and gliding skip mobility." The missile test and announcement have been interpreted as the North's attempt to counter South Korea's successful launching of its own domestically developed SLBM from the submarine Dosan Ahn Chang-ho in September.
Experts said the North Korean missile appeared to be a version of its existing KN-23, modified so that it could be launched from a submarine. Unlike North Korea's claim that it was a strategic weapon ― one designed for mass destruction ― experts said the KN-23 is closer to tactical weapon, designed for use on the battlefield.
"The missile was showcased during the North's military exhibition on Oct. 11, and the regime launched it soon after the showcase," said Shin Jong-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum.
"Though the North fired a tactical weapon this time, it also showed a missile assumed to be an ICBM. This means that the North is asserting that it may test an ICBM, spoiling the current move for a declaration to officially end the Korean War, unless the U.S. or South Korea agrees to its demands."
In recent weeks, the Moon administration has been striving to facilitate an "end-of-war" declaration involving the two Koreas, the U.S. and possibly China, as a means to bring the Kim Jong-un regime back to denuclearization talks.
In response to President Moon's proposal, however, Pyongyang has demanded that Washington remove sanctions placed upon it, and that Seoul abandon its "double standards" as preconditions for talks. The rhetoric is assumed to be targeting South Korea's SLBM test in September. When North Korea launched a ballistic missile from a train the same day, Seoul defined this as a "provocation."
Recently, the Moon government has stopped using the term "provocation" despite the North's missile tests last month, but Pyongyang continues to strenuously react to Seoul's improvements in its defense capability, raising concerns that there will be little progress towards a declaration ending the war.
The U.S. has also yet to offer any enticements for the North's return to dialogue, reiterating its stance that it is open to talks without any preconditions, while condemning Pyongyang's missile tests.
"Special Representative (for North Korea) Sung Kim emphasized U.S. condemnation of the DPRK's Oct. 19 ballistic missile launch, which violates multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, and called on the DPRK to refrain from further provocations and engage in sustained and substantive dialogue," the Department of State said in a statement. The DPRK stands for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"If the North tests an ICBM, the U.S. will see it as the regime crossing a red line," Shin said. "Given this, Pyongyang appears to be escalating the tension to just below that level to maximize its leverage in talks."
Go Myong-hyun, a senior research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said, "We should see Tuesday's launch as North Korea deciding on a compromise in showcasing its military power, in order to get the U.S. to pay greater attention to issues on the Korean Peninsula."
16. Netflix’s Squid Game savagely satirises our money-obsessed society – but it’s capitalism that is the real winner
Interesting (anti-capitalism) analysis.
But one thing for influence operations against the north and a message that might resonate with some Korean people living in the north. The South allows criticism of its own society and culture and economic system. Does the regime allow that in the north? In some ways this series is a demonstration of free expression (which can of course be profitable). But the ROK government made no attempt to censor this. Of course in the north there would have been no attempt to even make a movie critical of the north.
Netflix’s Squid Game savagely satirises our money-obsessed society – but it’s capitalism that is the real winner
The hit show has attracted global attention – not least from a North Korean propaganda website – for its takedown of capitalism. But the streaming service has wasted no time in commodifying the show’s success
Congratulations to the critics at Arirang Meari for understanding the not-so-subtle message of Squid Game: runaway capitalism is bad. Alas, I am not sure executives at Netflix are particularly bothered. They are far too busy raking in all the cash that Squid Game has made them. As it turns out, a scathing critique of capitalism may help push Netflix into becoming a trillion-dollar company. Squid Game has boosted Netflix stock’s market value by $19 bn since it launched in mid-September, according to Bloomberg. It has also created $900m in “impact value”, which is a metric Netflix uses to assess the performance of individual shows. The streaming platform is shamelessly trying to squeeze every last penny it can out of the show: it’s even selling Squid Game hoodies on its online store.
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
