Quotes of the Day:

"When will our conscience grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?" 

- Eleanor Roosevelt

"A person who possesses deep wisdom, derives valuable insights from observing their struggles, faced by others, using them as a guide, to avoid encountering similar predicaments." 

-Seneca

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." 

- George Orwell

1. Hamas is Using North Korean Weapons Against Israel

2. Jamie Dimon: 'The most serious thing facing mankind is nuclear proliferation'

3. The Return of Nuclear Escalation: How America’s Adversaries Have Hijacked Its Old Deterrence Strategy

4. N Korean leader pushes for anti-US front expansion, courts China

5. Experts: Americans are eating fish processed by slaves

6. S. Korea, US hold joint special operations drills

7. Significant civilian casualties inevitable in case of Hamas-like NK assault: experts

8. Man in South Korea fined for assaulting soldiers who refused to praise Kim Jong Un, Putin

9. [Top Envoy] S. Korea is done with ‘strategic ambiguity,’ ex-envoy says

10. North Korean programmers used a hosted laptop to freelance online, says FBI

11.  Army to Recruit Cyber Warriors (ROK)

12. Gov't urged to prepare for rise in N. Korean defections by sea

13. 11 Cases of Psychological Warfare Throughout History

14. [SPECIAL REPORT] Korean society grows more diverse but still struggles with multicultural integration

15. N. Korea to close its embassy in Uganda: report

16. ＜Inside N. Korea＞Opium addicts rise again as stimulants remain almost completely unavailable…Why? The police quickly clamp down on manufacture of drug

1. Hamas is Using North Korean Weapons Against Israel

Dr. Bruce Bechtol is one of the world's foremost experts tracking north Korean global proliferation activities. His forthcoming book (next summer I think) which he is co-authoring with an Iran expert will expose even more proliferation activities and collaboration between north Korea and Iran than his 2018 book.

Consider this article along with Jamie Dimon's recent statement on the greatest global threat is nuclear proliferation. (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/24/jamie-dimon-nuclear-proliferation-is-most-serious-thing-facing-mankind.html )

Conclusion:

What does all of this mean? First, it means North Korea will sell anything to anybody, including to terrorist groups. Second, it means the governments of Israel and the U.S. must consider North Korea’s military proliferation as an existential national security threat. More proactive means of thwarting it must begin immediately. Third, it means that North Korea’s strong ties to Iran extend to the proxy state and non-state actors Iran supports. Thus, the road to destroying North Korea’s illicit arms networks in the Middle East runs through Iran.

Hamas is Using North Korean Weapons Against Israel

What capabilities has North Korea actually contributed to Hamas? According to a source within the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, “some of the multiple rocket launchers found near the Israel border that Hamas militants reportedly used had ‘Bang-122’ written in Korean.”

19fortyfive.com · by Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. · October 24, 2023

In 2021, I wrote a piece in which I outlined reported arms deals between North Korea and Hamas. These transfers helped Hamas increase its stockpile of rockets and upgrade its technology and other military capabilities. At the time, Hamas was launching thousands of rockets into Israel, but most of these were destroyed by the Iron Dome system, and the Israeli people largely considered themselves safe from attack.

Fast forward to October of 2023 and the threat perception has changed. Hamas’ actions are so horrifying that most Israelis agree the group needs to be completely destroyed. The Oct. 7 terrorist attacks targeting civilian communities in Israel were carried out with an extreme level of brutality. Hamas militants were seen using weaponry from several sources, but shockingly to some, an analysis of weapons seen in footage of the attacks shows several systems with North Korean origins.

North Korea-Gaza Go-Betweens

In 2009, arms shipments consisting largely of rockets and rocket-propelled grenades were interdicted in Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. The Israeli government at the time stated that these shipments were probably bound for Hamas and Hezbollah. The go-between was almost certainly Iran. Since interdicted shipments are often only the smallest portion of what is being sent, the find was quite disturbing.

According to reporting by The Telegraph in July of 2014, North Korea had entered into a deal with Hamas to sell the terrorist organization rockets and communications gear. The deal was reportedly worth several hundred thousand dollars, so it likely involved the sale of thousands of North Korean rockets to Hamas. It was reportedly brokered through a Lebanese front company with ties to Hamas, located in Beirut. In addition, by the time the article was published, a downpayment had already been made, making it likely that rockets and communications gear were shipped in late 2014.

In 2018, Palestinian Fadi al-Batsh, a reported Hamas operative, was assassinated in Malaysia. a country that North Korea used to operate many of its front companies for arms deals. Those deals spanned the globe but focused especially on the Middle East and Africa. According to press reporting, intelligence officials from the West and the Middle East had evidence that al-Batsh was part of negotiations with the North Koreans for arms deals being run out of Malaysia, including for communications components used in rocket guidance systems. According to Egyptian officials, a shipment seized in 2018 contained North Korean communications components used for guided munitions, and it was destined for Gaza.

How North Korea Nurtured Hamas’ Capabilities

What capabilities has North Korea actually contributed to Hamas? According to a source within the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, “some of the multiple rocket launchers found near the Israel border that Hamas militants reportedly used had ‘Bang-122’ written in Korean.” The source elaborated, “Lately, we have repeatedly detected North Korea exporting various weapons to Middle East countries and militant organizations, including the 122-millimeter multiple rocket launchers found along the border near Israel. We believe these weapons were used by Hamas or an organization that supports Hamas.”

The F-7 North Korea-made rocket-propelled grenade was also photographed in possession of the Hamas fighters attacking Israel on Oct. 7. Further, according to the Associated Press and confirmed by numerous photos, “Hamas propaganda videos and photos previously have shown its fighters with North Korea’s Bulsae guided anti-tank missile.” The Bulsae is a laser-guided anti-tank missile that could be effective against Israeli armor as it moves through Gaza.

Finally, The Telegraph reported in 2014 that “Israeli military commanders supervising operations against Gaza believe North Korean experts have given Hamas advice on building the extensive network of tunnels in Gaza that has enabled fighters to move weapons without detection by Israeli drones, which maintain a constant monitoring operation over Gaza.”

These tunnels continue to be a major challenge to the IDF and will complicate a ground campaign in Gaza.

What does all of this mean? First, it means North Korea will sell anything to anybody, including to terrorist groups. Second, it means the governments of Israel and the U.S. must consider North Korea’s military proliferation as an existential national security threat. More proactive means of thwarting it must begin immediately. Third, it means that North Korea’s strong ties to Iran extend to the proxy state and non-state actors Iran supports. Thus, the road to destroying North Korea’s illicit arms networks in the Middle East runs through Iran.

Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. is a professor of Political Science at Angelo State University. He is also the president of the International Council on Korean Studies and a fellow at the Institute for Corean American Studies. The author of five books dealing with North Korea, his latest work is entitled North Korean Military Proliferation in the Middle East and Africa.

In this article:

Written By Bruce E. Bechtol Jr.

Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr. (Ph.D. Union Institute), is an award-winning professor of political science at Angelo State University and a retired Marine. He was formerly on the faculty at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College (2005–2010) and the Air Command and Staff College (2003–2005).

19fortyfive.com · by Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. · October 24, 2023

2. Jamie Dimon: 'The most serious thing facing mankind is nuclear proliferation'

Although not discussed here this is why north Korea and its relations with China, but particularly Russia and Iran as well as non-State actors, combined with its existing global proliferation network and other global illicit activities could really be at the center of nuclear proliferation.  

It seems that most in the national security community and the broader international community minimize the real threats of north Korea. It is not just a threat to South Korea (and Japan).

Remember that north Korea is describing the global environment as a Cold War. And it seeks to be a major player in it.

Excerpts:

The CTBT, which was opened for signatures in 1996, prohibits "any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion" anywhere in the world. It was signed by 187 nations and ratified by 178, but cannot officially come into force until 44 specific countries ratify it, including China, the United States, North Korea, India, Israel and Iran. Still, no country has carried out nuclear testing since the CTBT opened for signatures, except North Korea.

Jamie Dimon: 'The most serious thing facing mankind is nuclear proliferation'

KEY POINTS

• “The risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the Cold War,” the United Nations wrote in a statement this year.
• 
  
• Earlier in October, the JPMorgan CEO warned that “this may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades.”
• 
  

CNBC · by Natasha Turak · October 24, 2023

In this article

Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co speaks on September 25,2019 in New York, US.

Misha Friedman | Getty Images News | Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is asked routinely where he sees the greatest threats to the global economy — and to mankind in general. Speaking on a panel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the veteran financier stressed the gravity of the spread of nuclear weapons, which he placed ahead of climate change and other widely-referenced threats.

"I hear people talking about ESG all the time," Dimon said Tuesday, referring to the environmental, social and governance concerns and mandates for governments and companies.

"I just would put on your table the most serious thing facing mankind is nuclear proliferation. If we're not sitting here 100 years from now, it will be nuclear proliferation. It's not our climate."

International bodies and proliferation experts warn that the danger of nuclear weapons use is higher than it's been in decades, amid wars involving nuclear powers like Russia and the weakening of adherence to international nuclear treaties.

"The risk of a nuclear weapon being used is currently higher than at any time since the depths of the Cold War," the United Nations wrote in a statement in March 2023.

It said that the Russia-Ukraine war represents "the most acute example of that risk," and that "the absence of dialogue and the erosion of the disarmament and arms control architecture, combined with dangerous rhetoric and veiled threats, are key drivers of this potentially existential risk."

Russia meanwhile is revoking its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls "one of the most consequential international agreements for global security."

The CTBT, which was opened for signatures in 1996, prohibits "any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion" anywhere in the world. It was signed by 187 nations and ratified by 178, but cannot officially come into force until 44 specific countries ratify it, including China, the United States, North Korea, India, Israel and Iran. Still, no country has carried out nuclear testing since the CTBT opened for signatures, except North Korea.

Iran, meanwhile, has for the past few years ramped up its uranium enrichment to what the International Atomic Energy Agency says is an "alarming" level, and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has vowed to develop nuclear weapons for his country if Iran does, sparking fears of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race.

Earlier in October, Dimon said in a statement that came with JPMorgan's earnings release that "this may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades."

In addition to the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, Dimon cited — as he did again in Riyadh — the surging national debt and "the largest peacetime fiscal deficits ever."

"I've been generally an optimist," Dimon said on the panel, but added: "I think you'd be foolish not to look at some of these things taking place today in Ukraine, the Middle East – obviously my heart goes out for Ukraine, but also it's affecting oil, food, food prices, gas prices, migration, potential starvation – it's probably the most serious thing we've faced."

watch now

VIDEO2:4902:49

Some of Wall Street's biggest leaders gather in Saudi Arabia

Capital Connection

CNBC · by Natasha Turak · October 24, 2023

3. The Return of Nuclear Escalation: How America’s Adversaries Have Hijacked Its Old Deterrence Strategy

All the major threats addressed. I will highlight the north Korean threat (as I am wont to do due to my national security bias.).

Excerpts:

Pakistan has approximately 170 nuclear warheads, a third of which are tactical. Pakistani officials have made clear that the country’s nuclear posture is designed to deter or halt an Indian invasion. The former head of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, explained in 2015 that “by introducing the variety of tactical nuclear weapons in Pakistan’s inventory, . . . we have blocked the avenues for serious military operations by the other side.” In May 2023, he reiterated that the purpose of Pakistan’s diverse arsenal is to give it a “strategic shield” to blunt India’s conventional military superiority. To this end, Pakistan has focused on being able to rapidly assemble, mobilize, and disperse nuclear weapons at the outset of any conflict. Of course, Pakistan could not hope to win a nuclear war against India—which has a comparable number of nuclear warheads and sophisticated delivery systems capable of retaliation—but Pakistan could inflict tremendous pain on its neighbor, coercing India to halt a conventional military campaign.

North Korea has adopted a similar strategy. Pyongyang’s conventional military is vastly outmatched by the combined forces of South Korea and the United States. North Korea’s army is large, but its military equipment is decrepit, and its troops rarely conduct training beyond simple small-unit exercises. Lacking the resources to compete militarily, Pyongyang leans heavily on its nuclear weapons. As the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un explained in 2022, although the primary mission of his country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter an attack, he would use nuclear weapons to repel an attack if deterrence failed. “If any forces try to violate the fundamental interests of our state, our nuclear forces will have to decisively accomplish [this] unexpected second mission,” Kim said.

U.S. and South Korean military planners, like their Indian counterparts, must now grapple with the same problem the Soviets once faced: how to capitalize on conventional military advantages against an enemy that may be willing to use nuclear weapons. The United States has more than enough nuclear weapons to respond to North Korean nuclear escalation, as leaders in Pyongyang surely know. But if there is a war on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea will be desperate. The country’s leaders fear succumbing to the same fate as recent rulers who lost conventional wars, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya, who were killed after being ousted. With their regime and lives on the line, Pyongyang’s leaders would face enormous pressure to start a perilous tit-for-tat nuclear exchange—at first striking targets in the region, and then possibly in the United States—to compel their opponents in Seoul and Washington to accept a cease-fire.

But this is most troubling and the following comments will upset both the authors and US military planners. And per the comment above, north Korea has no intention of seeking a cease fire, if it attacks it will be all in to accomplish ist single strategi aim, domination of the entire Korean peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State. To allow anything less will mean the end of the regime. A cease fire will undermine and lead to the collapse of the regime; therefore the regime will not seek one.

Excerpt:

 Similarly, U.S. planners have encouraged their South Korean allies to consider wartime objectives far short of complete victory, to avoid pushing the Kim regime to the edge of nuclear war. For example, if North Korea launches a major artillery attack on South Korea, the wisest response may be to destroy or seize those artillery positions but not continue the campaign north to Pyongyang.

These comments illustrate both a lack of understanding by the authors of the combined military defense plans and the function of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command as well as a lack of understanding of the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime. The above recommendation is dangerous. It is based on the unspoken assumption that if we do not threaten Pyongyang the regime will not escalate the use of nuclear weapons. Once the ROK/US alliance conducts any cross border attack in response to a north Korean attack, targets throughout the breadth and depth of north Korea will be struck both to neutralize the north Korean IADs as well as to eliminate all the north;s missile capabilities from SRBMs to ICBMs (as well as all C4ISR capabilities of the regime). There is no "local attack" or limited atack of north Korea's frontline artillery forces.

And to "counsel" South Korean counterparts to pursue objectives far short of complete victory is not only politically problematic it is morally wrong. To argue for a return to the status quo after hundreds of thousands of South Korean casualties (civilian and military) and thousands of American casualties is so wrong that I cannot find words to describe it. But again, "limited objectives" comes from ivory tower theorists who are making erroneous assumptions based on a lack of understanding of the nature, objectives, and tragedy of the Kim family regime and the wishful thinking that Kim Jong Un will first recognize our limited objectives and then accept them and will thus be inclined to not escalate nuclear use. First, it will be difficult for Kim to even recognize our "limited objectives" and despite us making them public, he will not be inclined to believe our statements.  

Lastly, the idea that US planners have "encouraged" South Koreans to consider limited objectives seems to imply there will be some sort of unilateral ROK military only defense of South Korea with the US simply overlooking the fight while trying to restrain the ROK military into only seeking limited objectives. Again, this is a misunderstanding to the ROK/US alliance and combined military planning is based on a combined military defense of the ROK.

And really lastly, once north Korea initiates it campaign plan to dominate the peninsula, the ROK/US alliance must execute not only the defense of South Korea but must achieve what was called for in paragraph 60 of the Armistice as well as the ROK constitution, which is the end to the unnatural division of the peninsula. Anything less will be not only a tragedy but also a continuation of instability in Northeast Asia and will dishonor the memory of the perhaps millions who will have perished on the Korean peninsula on both sides of the former DMZ. Does anyone advocate for the expenditure of such treasure and blood only to return to a status quo? And this is all based on the erroneous assumption that Kim will not escalate nuclear use if we telegraph that we have limited objectives and are willing to allow him to remain in power. Anyone who advocates for the above course of action should begin their representation with the following statement: "I am going to provide a presentation that supports the Kim family regime remaining in power indefinitely and will show the path to returning to the status quo after suffering millions of casualties in Korea."

Needless to say, the excertped statements in the essay above make me mad and I worry that there are some who support this kind of dangerous thinking.

The Return of Nuclear Escalation

How America’s Adversaries Have Hijacked Its Old Deterrence Strategy

By Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press

November/December 2023

Published on October 24, 2023

Foreign Affairs · by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press · October 24, 2023

Nuclear weapons once again loom large in international politics, and a dangerous pattern is emerging. In the regions most likely to draw the United States into conflict—the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, eastern Europe, and the Persian Gulf—U.S. adversaries appear to be acquiring, enhancing, or threatening to use nuclear weapons. North Korea is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the United States; China is doubling the size of its arsenal; Russia is threatening to use nuclear weapons in its war in Ukraine; and according to U.S. officials, Iran has amassed enough fissile material for a bomb. Many people hoped that once the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons would recede into irrelevance. Instead, many countries are relying on them to make up for the weakness of their conventional military forces.

Still, optimists in the United States argue that the risk of nuclear war remains low. Their reasoning is straightforward: the countries that are building up and brandishing their nuclear capabilities are bluffing. Nuclear weapons cannot paper over conventional military weakness because threats to escalate—even by a desperate enemy—are not credible. According to the optimists, giving credence to the nuclear bluster of weak enemies is misguided and plays squarely into their hands.

Unfortunately, the optimists are wrong. The risk of nuclear escalation during conventional war is much greater than is generally appreciated. The conundrum that U.S. adversaries face today—how to convincingly threaten escalation and bring a nuclear-armed opponent to a stalemate—was solved decades ago by the United States and its NATO allies. Back then, the West developed a strategy of coercive nuclear escalation to convince the Soviet Union that NATO allies would actually use nuclear weapons if they were invaded. Today, U.S. rivals have adopted NATO’s old nuclear strategy and developed their own options for credible escalation. The United States must take seriously the nuclear capabilities and resolve of its foes. It would be tragic for Washington to stumble into nuclear war because it discounted the very strategy that it invented decades ago.

NATO’S NUCLEAR PLAYBOOK

In the late 1950s, the forces of the Warsaw Pact, an alliance of the Soviet Union and seven other satellite states, outnumbered those of NATO in terms of manpower by about three to one. Up to that point, NATO’s response to Soviet conventional superiority had been simple. If the Soviets invaded Western Europe, the United States would launch an all-out nuclear bombing campaign against the Soviet Union. The message to Moscow was brutal but credible: the Soviets might have conventional superiority, but the next European war would not remain conventional.

But this strategy began to fall apart merely a decade into the Cold War. The Soviet Union was on the cusp of fielding a strong nuclear arsenal of its own, a vast improvement over the small and vulnerable force it had deployed up to that point. Soon, NATO’s strategy would no longer make sense. The alliance could not credibly threaten to respond to a conventional invasion with a full-blown nuclear strike on the Soviet Union because the Soviets would have the capability to retaliate in kind. During a war, NATO would face a lose-lose choice: lose a fight with conventional weapons or initiate a mutually catastrophic nuclear exchange. In other words, in the latter decades of the Cold War, NATO faced the same challenge that many U.S. adversaries face today: it had little hope of prevailing in a conventional war, and no hope of winning a nuclear one.

NATO found an answer to this problem. The alliance made plans to use nuclear weapons in the event of war, but in a different way. Instead of relying solely on the threat of a massive U.S. nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, NATO would respond to an invasion by using nuclear weapons coercively. That is, they would launch a few nuclear weapons—probably tactical ones, which have small yields and short ranges—against military targets to convince Soviet leaders that the war was spinning out of control, pressuring them to stop the invasion. Such a use of nuclear weapons could deliver a heavy blow to a Soviet advance, but more important, it would demonstrate to Soviet leaders that they were courting nuclear disaster. NATO had solved what had seemed to be an intractable problem: how to use nuclear threats to stalemate an enemy they could not beat at the conventional or nuclear level.

In contests of resolve, the side that cares the most has the advantage.

To back up this strategy, the United States deployed thousands of tactical nuclear weapons to Europe so that Washington could escalate in a manner that was distinguishable from an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. The alliance also created a “nuclear sharing” arrangement, whereby U.S. weapons based in Europe would be given to several NATO allies during a war, so that the countries the Soviet Union hoped to overrun would have their own nuclear defenses.

The details of NATO’s strategy evolved over time, but the core rationale remained constant. NATO would not keep its nuclear weapons holstered as its member states were being conquered; nor would it launch a suicidal nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Instead, the alliance would escalate gradually and coercively, ensuring that the risks of continuing the conflict were too great for the Soviets to bear.

At the time, analysts criticized many aspects of NATO’s strategy. They argued, for example, that nuclear strikes on Soviet military targets would trigger retaliation against NATO’s forces, thus negating any advantage of using nuclear weapons in the first place. But the point of NATO’s escalation was not to change the military balance per se, but to use the shock of nuclear strikes to generate fear and compel the Soviets to accept a cease-fire. Other critics asked why NATO should expect that, once both sides escalated, the Soviets would be the party to blink first. But deterrence strategists noted that in a defensive war, the NATO allies would care more about defending their own freedom and territorial independence than the Soviets would care about waging a war of aggression. In contests of resolve, after all, the side that cares the most has the advantage.

Critics disapproved of NATO’s strategy for other reasons—threatening to start a potentially civilization-ending nuclear war seemed immoral, and assuming that escalation could be controlled once started appeared foolish. NATO leaders could not allay such criticisms, but the alliance nevertheless relied on the logic of deliberate escalation to defend itself from an otherwise overwhelming foe. NATO’s strategy made nuclear weapons the ultimate weapons of the weak, the perfect tool for holding off powerful rivals.

COPYCATS

This strategy of nuclear escalation did not disappear when the Cold War ended. Around the world today, several nuclear-armed countries that find themselves outmatched at the conventional military level lean on nuclear weapons to stave off catastrophic military defeat.

Pakistan is a prime example. Its principal adversary, India, has five times the population, nine times the GDP, and spends six times as much on its military. To make matters worse, most of Pakistan’s largest cities are less than 100 miles from the Indian border, and the terrain in the most likely corridors of an Indian invasion is difficult to defend. Unable to build sufficient conventional defenses, Pakistan’s leaders worry that a major war would lead to the destruction of its army and the seizure or isolation of its major cities. And so they rely on nuclear weapons to keep their next-door neighbor at bay.

Pakistan has approximately 170 nuclear warheads, a third of which are tactical. Pakistani officials have made clear that the country’s nuclear posture is designed to deter or halt an Indian invasion. The former head of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, explained in 2015 that “by introducing the variety of tactical nuclear weapons in Pakistan’s inventory, . . . we have blocked the avenues for serious military operations by the other side.” In May 2023, he reiterated that the purpose of Pakistan’s diverse arsenal is to give it a “strategic shield” to blunt India’s conventional military superiority. To this end, Pakistan has focused on being able to rapidly assemble, mobilize, and disperse nuclear weapons at the outset of any conflict. Of course, Pakistan could not hope to win a nuclear war against India—which has a comparable number of nuclear warheads and sophisticated delivery systems capable of retaliation—but Pakistan could inflict tremendous pain on its neighbor, coercing India to halt a conventional military campaign.

North Korea has adopted a similar strategy. Pyongyang’s conventional military is vastly outmatched by the combined forces of South Korea and the United States. North Korea’s army is large, but its military equipment is decrepit, and its troops rarely conduct training beyond simple small-unit exercises. Lacking the resources to compete militarily, Pyongyang leans heavily on its nuclear weapons. As the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un explained in 2022, although the primary mission of his country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter an attack, he would use nuclear weapons to repel an attack if deterrence failed. “If any forces try to violate the fundamental interests of our state, our nuclear forces will have to decisively accomplish [this] unexpected second mission,” Kim said.

U.S. and South Korean military planners, like their Indian counterparts, must now grapple with the same problem the Soviets once faced: how to capitalize on conventional military advantages against an enemy that may be willing to use nuclear weapons. The United States has more than enough nuclear weapons to respond to North Korean nuclear escalation, as leaders in Pyongyang surely know. But if there is a war on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea will be desperate. The country’s leaders fear succumbing to the same fate as recent rulers who lost conventional wars, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya, who were killed after being ousted. With their regime and lives on the line, Pyongyang’s leaders would face enormous pressure to start a perilous tit-for-tat nuclear exchange—at first striking targets in the region, and then possibly in the United States—to compel their opponents in Seoul and Washington to accept a cease-fire.

Unlike Pakistan and North Korea, China has declined to use nuclear threats to compensate for its conventional military inferiority relative to the United States. China’s reluctance to depend on nuclear threats is particularly notable given the high stakes of a major war over Taiwan. Defeat in such a conflict might lead to formal independence for the island—a major blow to China’s conception of its sovereignty. Perhaps more important, the loss of Taiwan would humiliate the Chinese Communist Party and could stoke a nationalist backlash or internal coup. Nevertheless, China has focused on improving its conventional military rather than readying its nuclear arsenal for wartime coercion. In fact, Beijing asserts that it will never be the first side in a conflict to use nuclear weapons.

To be clear, China’s nuclear doctrine is not as simple as it sounds. According to Chinese military documents, Beijing would consider exceptions to its no-first-use policy if China faced a major military defeat in a high-stakes conventional war. And Chinese strategists have considered how low-yield nuclear weapons could be used coercively. Additionally, around 2019 China began updating its nuclear forces in ways that would support a coercive strategy. It has increased the size, readiness, and diversity of its arsenal to increase its survivability; this would allow Beijing to initiate wartime escalation without fear that the United States could respond by destroying its nuclear force. Finally, China’s leaders could change their official stance during a war and use nuclear weapons if a conflict against the United States went badly. But as of now, China remains committed in its rhetoric to eschewing a nuclear first use and in addressing its military weaknesses by strengthening its conventional military power.

China’s current no-first-use policy aside, the pattern is dangerous to ignore: nuclear-armed countries that fear catastrophic military defeat frequently adopt escalatory doctrines to keep their enemies at bay. For NATO during the Cold War, Pakistan or North Korea today, and perhaps even China in the future, nuclear escalation on the battlefield makes sense if the only alternative is a regime-threatening defeat. Coercive nuclear escalation is a competition in pain—both inflicting it and suffering it—which is a type of conflict that invariably favors the desperate.

ALL IN

Russia is another country that embraces the strategy of coercive nuclear escalation. When the Cold War ended, the Western allies—suddenly freed from the fear of major military defeat in Europe—quickly soured on nuclear forces. Russia, acutely aware of its newfound conventional military inferiority, did the opposite, adapting NATO’s old ideas about nuclear escalation to Russia’s new circumstances.

Analysts debate the details of Russia’s current nuclear doctrine, but most agree that it calls for escalation to deter or stop the most serious military threats to Russian security. Like other conventionally weak but nuclear-armed countries, Russia has integrated into its conventional war-fighting plans and exercises many tactical nuclear weapons, including air-delivered bombs, cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles. If the fighting in Ukraine shifts significantly in favor of Kyiv, and Russian President Vladimir Putin decides that defeat in Ukraine threatens his regime, Russia appears capable—and likely willing—to initiate a coercive nuclear war.

Putin has always portrayed the war in Ukraine as a core national security interest, based on historic territorial claims and the perceived threat of Ukraine’s membership in NATO. He has publicly framed the war in nearly existential terms. Perhaps most important, complete defeat in Ukraine would be humiliating and particularly dangerous to a leader who has built his power on a reputation for strength, acumen, and restoring Russian greatness. Preventing military catastrophe would be of paramount importance to Putin, and nuclear escalation would be one of his few remaining cards to play. No enemy army stands poised to invade Russia. But if Putin believes that complete defeat in Ukraine will lead to his being toppled—and killed or detained—he will likely see the stakes as sufficiently high to use nuclear weapons.

Russian leaders have made the links between the war in Ukraine and nuclear escalation clear. One of Russia’s most senior defense officials and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, said in July 2023 that Russia “would have to use nuclear weapons” if Ukraine’s counteroffensive succeeded in retaking Russian-held territory. “There simply wouldn’t be any other solution,” he said. Putin claimed in February 2023 that Western countries “intend to transform a local conflict into a phase of global confrontation,” adding that Russia “will react accordingly, because in this case we are talking about the existence of our country.” And in September 2022, he said that Russia would use “all means at its disposal” to defend its territorial annexations in Ukraine.

NATO’s strategy made nuclear weapons the ultimate weapons of the weak.

Perhaps these nuclear threats are mere bluffs aimed at convincing the West to end its support for Ukraine. In fact, some Western observers discount the plausibility of escalation, noting that if Russia’s military position in Ukraine starts to collapse, nuclear escalation would not solve Moscow’s problem. Ukraine’s military forces are dispersed, so even a handful of Russian tactical nuclear strikes would do limited damage to Kyiv’s forces. Moreover, Russian escalation would only make the Kremlin’s problems worse because NATO would probably respond with conventional attacks against Russian forces in Ukraine. In short, according to the skeptics, Russia’s nuclear threats are hollow.

Those who downplay Russia’s nuclear options misunderstand the logic of coercive escalation. Russia’s goal would not be to rectify the conventional military imbalance but to demonstrate in a shocking fashion that the war is spinning out of control and must be ended immediately. The aim would be to raise the prospect of a wider nuclear war and convince people and their leaders in the West that given what is at stake for Russian leaders, Moscow will keep inflicting pain to forestall defeat.

If Russian escalation triggered a large-scale conventional NATO attack on Russia’s forces in Ukraine, as many analysts expect it would, Moscow could just use nuclear weapons again—much as NATO would have done in the face of a Soviet invasion. Had the Soviet Union invaded a NATO member, the balance of wills would have favored NATO because the allies would have been fighting to protect their own freedom and territory. Now, if defeat in Ukraine endangers Putin’s regime, the Kremlin would have the most to lose. The reasoning behind escalation is brutal, similar to that for blackmail or torture. But self-interested leaders facing a defeat that could cost them their lives may have no other option.

To be sure, Russian nuclear escalation is only one possible course. The current battlefield stalemate may drag on until the two sides grudgingly agree to a cease-fire. Perhaps Russian forces will regain the initiative and seize larger swaths of Ukrainian territory. Or maybe Putin’s domestic opponents will remove him from power, opening the door to a better settlement for Ukraine. It is even possible that if Russia’s leaders order nuclear escalation, military commanders may refuse to carry it out, instead launching a coup to end Putin’s regime. The future of the conflict is uncertain, but the logic and history of the nuclear age is clear: when a conventionally superior army backs a nuclear-armed enemy against a wall, it risks nuclear war.

TABLES TURNED

Hawkish policy analysts suggest that the United States can stare down its adversaries’ nuclear threats if Washington has enough military power, a resolute mindset, and a strong nuclear deterrent. But those attributes will not deter an enemy that is cornered. The United States will be in grave danger if it underestimates the will of desperate, nuclear-armed adversaries.

The good news is that the Biden administration appears to understand the risk of escalation in the Ukraine war. Early statements made by U.S. President Joe Biden suggesting that Putin “cannot remain in power” have been replaced with more moderate rhetoric, and U.S. leaders have limited the kinds of weapons they provide Ukraine in large part to manage the dangers of escalation. Similarly, U.S. planners have encouraged their South Korean allies to consider wartime objectives far short of complete victory, to avoid pushing the Kim regime to the edge of nuclear war. For example, if North Korea launches a major artillery attack on South Korea, the wisest response may be to destroy or seize those artillery positions but not continue the campaign north to Pyongyang.

A military drill in North Korea, March 2023

Central News Agency (KCNA) / Reuters

But it is impossible to know for sure how an enemy will react in war, especially because leaders are incentivized to misrepresent their actual redlines. Fighting nuclear-armed adversaries is a dangerous game of brinkmanship. There are military steps the United States can take to reduce these dangers. For potential conflicts on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. military should be developing strategies for waging conventional war in a manner designed to reduce the risks of escalation. For example, the U.S. military should minimize attacks that undermine an enemy leadership’s situational awareness and hold on power, such as strikes on national command-and-control networks, nuclear forces, and leadership targets themselves. Enemies who rely on nuclear weapons to stalemate U.S. military power will, of course, adapt as well; they will likely entangle the conventional and nuclear domains to prevent the United States from safely waging a conventional war. But the United States can make plans to escalate conventionally without threatening the survival of an enemy regime, thereby reducing the risk that a desperate leader will employ a nuclear weapon.

The United States must take the growing threat of coercive nuclear escalation seriously. After the Cold War, the United States became more ambitious in its foreign policy objectives. It spread Western political values and free markets and forged military ties around the world. But such objectives are opposed by nuclear-armed adversaries in China, North Korea, Russia, and perhaps soon in Iran. U.S. policymakers would be wise to not discount the potential power of their enemies. And if they need to be reminded of what their foes may be able to do, they need turn only to their own history.

• KEIR A. LIEBER is a Professor in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government at Georgetown University.
• DARYL G. PRESS is Director of the Initiative for Global Security at the Dickey Center for International Understanding and Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.

Foreign Affairs · by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press · October 24, 2023

4. N Korean leader pushes for anti-US front expansion, courts China

Not only does Kim Jong Un's DNA continue the desire to play RUssia and China off against each other, Kim is also carrying the water for both China and Russia by using their talking points (because it is to his advantage to do so in Kim's mind). And Kim really does want to be a player in the "new Cold War" (Kim's characterization)

And this supports a key theme of the Propaganda and Agitation department that portrays the US as the dangerous enemy that requires the sacrifice and suffering of the Korean people in the north to support Kim and his nuclear missile, and military programs in order to defend the regime and the north. 

N Korean leader pushes for anti-US front expansion, courts China

The move comes as Washington grapples with challenges from Ukraine and the Middle East.

By Lee Jeong-Ho for RFA

2023.10.24

Seoul, South Korea

rfa.org

North Korea made further overtures to China, highlighting their mutual history of opposition to the United States. The move underscores its leader Kim Jong Un’s strategic push to solidify his anti-American united front as Washington grapples with resource allocation in Asia amidst challenges from Ukraine and the Middle East.

“The bond forged in blood between the people of the two nations will forever endure,” North Korea’s official Rodong Sinmun said Wednesday, as it marked the 73rd anniversary of China’s intervention in the Korean War.

The state publication labeled the Korean War an “invasion by the allied imperialist forces,” lauding China by saying it had fought “side by side with our armies, sacrificing their blood and lives in the joint endeavor to defeat the common enemy.” The paper also underscored the bilateral “anti-imperialist” alliance.

China intervened in the Korean War to aid North Korea on Oct. 25, 1950, four months after the North attacked the South in June. Beijing refers to the intervention as “anti-American aid,” and likewise, Pyongyang views this day as a symbolic representation of its enduring friendship with China.

The message may hold significant weight, as Pyongyang often accentuates its longstanding bond with Beijing for strategic purposes, particularly when facing heightened geopolitical challenges. Historically, North Korea has displayed a tendency to reach out to China during times of international strain or in pursuit of diplomatic advantage, with the intent of amplifying its leverage on the global stage.

Over the past few weeks, North Korea’s foreign policy has shown signs of a larger strategy at play. From supporting Hamas, which attacked U.S.-ally Israel, to bolstering ties with Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, Pyongyang appears keen on crafting a united front against Washington.

Radio Free Asia, earlier this month, reported the possibility of Hamas militants using North Korean weapons, and South Korea’s Joint Chief of Staff later confirmed the RFA reports with its intelligence assessing that the North appeared to have a military connection to Hamas.

Last week, a portrait of North Korean leader Kim appeared at an anti-U.S. protest in the West Bank, showing the close emotional connection of Palestine people against the U.S. and its allies standing with Israel. The Middle East conflict was a “tragedy created entirely by the United States,” North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said Monday.

“Kim Jong Un seemingly perceives the emergence of a new Cold War could benefit his regime’s stability.” said Wang Son-taek, director of the Global Policy Center at the Han Pyeong Peace Institute. “At this juncture, circumstances appear conducive for the onset of such a geopolitical climate. Both North Korea and Russia are facing economic sanctions, and China is locked in a strategic rivalry with the U.S. These three nations alone could form a strong foundation for an anti-American alliance.”

Pyongyang’s primary objective is to establish and expand this alliance, Wang noted. Countries like Iran, Belarus, Syria, and Cuba could potentially join this coalition, and so could other BRICS nations under certain circumstances, he explained, referring to the bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and soon to include Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

“For Kim Jong Un, drawing these countries into the alliance could be a strategic advantage. He seems to be of the opinion that trading with these nations could be sufficient to ensure his regime’s survival and maintain its stability.”

Cheon Seong-whun, a former security strategy secretary for South Korea’s presidential office, also said that Kim Jong Un was demonstrating swift adaptability in the face of the emergence of what appears to be a new Cold War dynamic.

“Amidst the standoff between the U.S. and China, Kim Jong Un’s strategy leans towards a stronger alignment with China. Additionally, he is attempting to leverage the complexities in the Middle East and Europe to his benefit,” said Cheon, noting that the anti-American united front means a “total collapse” of the sanction regimes against North Korea.

These endeavors are not merely isolated incidents. They echo a larger global trend wherein nations are establishing new alliances in response to Washington’s Asia strategy. For instance, North Korea’s leader Kim and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin met at the symbol of Russian space prowess in Russia’s Far East last month, and vowed to form an “anti-imperialist united front.” Pyongyang has been calling the U.S. and its allies “imperialists.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets Russia's President Vladimir Putin in the Amur Oblast of the Far East Region, Russia, September 13, 2023 in this image released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency. (Source: Reuters)

The united front against the U.S. is already taking shape. RFA cited analysis by a private U.S. research organization the Institute for the Study of War as saying that the North could have already provided up to 500,000 pieces of ammunition to Russia, which could be used in its invasion against Ukraine.

That united front is showing signs of being multilateral with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying in Pyongyang last week that Moscow was seeking stronger cooperation with North Korea and China to counter the U.S. and its regional allies, as reported by Russian news organization Tass.

Tighter cooperation among the non-Western nations may amplify their leverage against the U.S. and its regional partners. The move may enhance their collective bargaining power and operational capabilities against the West, ultimately posing a challenge to Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

“The U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy is facing significant hurdles,” Cheon said, noting that if it is properly implemented, not only the U.S., but also countries like Australia and Western Europe would concentrate on containing China, and consequently, North Korea would inevitably come under focus as well.

“Ultimately, North Korea would also face political, military, diplomatic and economic pressures. However, these pressures are currently dispersed due to conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, indicating a diminished cohesion,” Cheon noted. “Moving towards a new Cold War framework ensures regime survival in the medium to long term. Just as the previous Cold War era ensured Kim Il Sung’s regime stability, the new-Cold War context could secure the tenure of Kim Jong Un.”

Han Pyeong Peace Institute’s Wang also called for the U.S. and its allies to replace the Indo-Pacific strategy with a global initiative.

“Given the U.S.’s role as a global hegemon, its interests should naturally encompass the entire world. Constricting its focus in the Indo-Pacific theater seems like self-imposed limitations on its global leadership,” Wang said. “A broader vision that resonates with the global community is essential.”

He noted that adopting a more inclusive slogan such as 'new paradigm for peaceful coexistence' and pressuring powers like China and Russia within that framework may be an alternative option Washington could consider to make other nations more inclined to align with the U.S.

“A global strategy, rather than a purely national or regional one, should be the way forward.”

Edited by Taejun Kang and Mike Firn.

rfa.org

5. Experts: Americans are eating fish processed by slaves

Experts: Americans are eating fish processed by slaves

Uyghurs and North Koreans are forced to process seafood destined for the United States, they say.

By Alex Willemyns for RFA

2023.10.24

Washington

rfa.org

North Korean and Uyghur slaves are processing seafood for Chinese companies that export to the United States, experts and lawmakers told Congress on Tuesday, with customs officials struggling to identify and keep the tainted fish off Americans’ plates.

The experts told the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that even U.S. military caterers were buying fish caught or processed by laborers trapped in jobs from which they cannot escape – and who are seldom paid a living wage.

Such seafood is hard to differentiate from legally caught and processed fish, they said.

Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey and the chair of the committee, said there was ample evidence China-based companies are “exploiting the forced labor of Uyghurs and North Koreans” to undercut international competitors, including in the United States.

“From fish sticks to calamari, these products infiltrate the supply chains of major restaurants, wholesalers, and even find their way into the meals served in American schools and military bases,” he said, adding that it violated laws like the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

Smith said he and Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon who is the co-chair of the commission, had written a joint letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas calling for an investigation into “the weakness of our system” in allowing fish to pass customs.

Tough to trace

Ian Urbina, director of The Outlaw Ocean Project, said that seafood, as “the world's last major source of wild protein,” was “a distinct global commodity” where labor exploitation could be particularly profitable.

Workers process tilapia fish at a factory in Wenchang, Hainan province, China, June 20, 2018. (Reuters)

Despite being the world’s biggest food commodity by value, he explained, wild seafood is “harder to track than many other products” because it is by definition caught far away from the prying eyes of authorities, making it easy to mask slave labor in supply chains.

“Between bait and plate there are an inordinate number of handoffs of this product,” Urbina said. “It goes from fishing ship to refrigeration ship, to port, to processor, to cold storage, to exporter, to U.S. importer, to distributor or food service company, and then finally to a restaurant, to grocery store or public food pantry, military base or public school.”

“These many handoffs make it tougher to trace the true origin of the catch, and to ensure there is no forced labor or other environmental crimes in the supply chain,” he said. He added the few auditing services that exist “do a very poor job” at identifying slavery.

Forced labor in fisheries took place “in two distinct realms,” he said.

At sea, he said, it is “endemic” and enforced by debt bondage, human trafficking and beatings, with Indonesians often the victims. But it also occurs at processing plants on China’s coast, using North Koreans as well as Uyghurs transferred from Xinjiang province against their will.

“More than 1,000 workers from Xinjiang have been forcibly relocated to at least 10 seafood processing plants in Shandong that supply dozens of major U.S. food brands,” Urbina said. “The ethnic minorities pressed into service do not have an option to say no to these jobs.”

North Koreans

The use of North Koreans to process seafood destined for the United States is a long-running issue, according to Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

The North Koreans transferred to China face “inhumane working conditions” and are not allowed to contact the outside world, he said, and were only paid a small sum after returning home after years of work, often forced to moonlight for cash while in China.

“The Chinese companies pay the North Korean regime mostly based on production volume,” Scarlatoiu told the commission .

“Men mainly carry frozen fish blocks and women sit down and peel fish or squid or sort clams and crabs by size. Most of the North Koreans work the whole day in cold storage,” he said.

“The pungent smell inside is unbearable,” he said. “North Korean workers at the Chinese seafood processing plants usually work about 10 hours a day, but if production targets are not met, the workday can extend to over 12 hours.”

Scarlatoiu added the true origin of the products of their labor was then often obfuscated to aid its passage to Europe or the United States.

“There are reported instances of processed seafood marked ‘Made in China’ being shipped out of Vladivostok, where labels are switched to ‘Made in Russia,’ and exported to third countries,” he said.

Difficult solutions

Each of the experts said a solution to the problem would be hard to find, given how difficult it can be at a port-of-entry to differentiate illegally caught or processed seafood from legitimate catches.

But Robert Stumberg, a law professor at Georgetown University and expert in trade law, said there was an easy fix to at least part of the problem: “implement the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act” by blacklisting more companies known to use forced labor.

Stumberg said the Entity List of Chinese companies banned from exports to the United States due to the use of forced Uyghur labor had grown from 20 to just 27 companies since 2021, despite “thousands of pieces of evidence about other entities” being submitted.

Thea Lee, deputy undersecretary for international labor affairs at the Department of Labor and a member of the commission, responded that administration officials were trying to “use those tools that Congress gave us as effectively as we can” without cutting any corners.

“It's been very slow going; it's been frustrating, I think, to all of us,” Lee said, adding the department was focussed on figuring out “what can withstand legal challenge, [and] what can be as robust as possible.”

Edited by Malcolm Foster

rfa.org

6. S. Korea, US hold joint special operations drills

S. Korea, US hold joint special operations drills

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

South Korean and U.S. special operations troops stage combined drills at an undisclosed location in this undated photo captured from the U.S. Special Operations Command-Korea's Facebook page, Oct. 25. Yonhap

South Korea and the United States have staged a combined multi-domain special operations exercise to enhance interoperability, the U.S. military said Wednesday, amid joint efforts to counter North Korean military threats.

The recent exercise involved U.S. Navy SEALs and South Korean troops from the Navy Special Warfare Flotilla and the Army Special Warfare Command, the U.S. Special Operations Command-Korea (SOCKOR) said on its Facebook page, without disclosing its location or date.

A South Korean Army official said the allies held the drills from Oct. 16-20, but declined to provide further details, citing operational security.

"The training took place in the maritime, air, and land domains, enhancing our interoperability and mission capabilities in diverse settings," the U.S. unit said, adding that UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and a South Korean landing ship were mobilized.

The exercise came amid lingering tensions from North Korea's continued saber-rattling this year, including its firing of two short-range ballistic missiles into the East Sea last month.

SOCKOR is a component command of U.S. Forces Korea, and is tasked with conducting special operations in the Korean theater of operations. (Yonhap)

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

7. Significant civilian casualties inevitable in case of Hamas-like NK assault: experts

A wake up call for the ROK.

Significant civilian casualties inevitable in case of Hamas-like NK assault: experts

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets launched from the Gaza Strip, as seen from Ashkelon, in southern Israel, Oct. 20. Experts said on Wednesday that North Korea may imitate Hamas' attack on Israel, to which South Korean civilians will remain vulnerable. Reuters-Yonhap

New air defense system cannot eliminate artillery threats, Ex-Army major generals say

By Jung Min-ho

Speaking to lawmakers at Monday’s National Assembly audit of government affairs, Gen. Park Jeong-hwan, South Korea’s Army chief of staff, said he will redouble efforts to expedite the development and deployment of a new air defense system against North Korea’s possible imitation of Hamas’ attack on Israel.

Having seen how thousands of rockets fired by the Palestinian militant group overwhelmed Israel’s missile interception system on Oct. 7, Park also said the low altitude missile defense-II (LAMD-II) system, a project expected to be completed in seven years, would protect some of the densely populated areas of South Korea.

However, according to two former Army major generals, the new system is primarily designed to protect key military facilities and a significant number of civilian casualties is inevitable under such a scenario ― an inconvenient truth Park did not talk much about at the National Assembly.

“If North Korea carries out such an attack with its long-range artillery pieces, it is impossible to intercept them all (with the new system),” Bang Jong-goan, a researcher at Korea Research Institute for National Strategy, a think tank, said during a forum in Seoul. “If that occurs, the objective should be to destroy the weapons in the shortest time possible … But for a couple dozen minutes or so, there would be damage.”

That damage is expected to be far greater than what was seen in Israel, where more than 1,400 people were killed as a result of the Hamas attack. North Korea is believed to be able to fire some 16,000 shells per hour from around 1,000 artillery pieces along the inter-Korean border in the early stages of a war. Of them, North Korea is estimated to operate some 340 long-range artillery pieces, which directly target the greater Seoul area, home to about half of the South’s 51.5 million population.

To minimize possible casualties from such an assault, Bang said what the military should focus on is developing a strategy and capabilities to shorten the time to recognize an attack and prepare for a counteroffensive.

However, that does not mean that South Korea won’t need such an advanced anti-missile system, said Kim Kyu-yeon, director at Korea Association of Defense Industry Studies, a think tank.

“Both defense and counterattack means should be expanded, as the enemies would always attack the most vulnerable parts of their targets,” Kim added. “Some say Israel’s Iron Dome (its air defense system) failed. But it didn’t. It just faced the situation beyond its capability.”

Both experts said South Korea’s military should take lessons from Israel’s intelligence failure, saying the 2018 inter-Korean military accord significantly restricts the military’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities near the border area and that it needs to be suspended.

The agreement, inked by the previous Moon Jae-in administration on Sept. 9 that year amid a thaw in cross-border relations, includes setting up no-fly zones near the border.

The agreement may decrease the risk of accidental clashes, but it limits South Korea’s ability and right to conduct drills necessary to prepare for North Korea’s sudden attack, said Bang. “Therefore, it (its suspension) needs to be considered,” he added.

North Korea has virtually nullified the pact by sending its drones into South Korea’s airspace among many other violations. “I don’t know whether it would be proper for us to continue to maintain the agreement when the other party doesn’t,” Kim said.

“At a time when the U.S. (South Korea’s key ally) is now being forced to handle two wars at the same time, another security threat could emerge in East Asia as well … We all should ask ourselves whether we are prepared for one,” he added.

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

8. Man in South Korea fined for assaulting soldiers who refused to praise Kim Jong Un, Putin

I do not know what to make of this. What is the rest of the story.? I would not find any more reporting on this.

Man in South Korea fined for assaulting soldiers who refused to praise Kim Jong Un, Putin

By CUE The Straits Times

October 24, 2023

View Original

A 24-year-old man has been fined for abusing and assaulting junior soldiers during military service. PHOTO: AFP

SEOUL - A 24-year-old man has been fined 7 million won (S$7,100) for abusing and assaulting junior soldiers during military service.

The man was found guilty of abusing and assaulting soldiers, while he was on his compulsory military service in 2022, according to the Incheon District Court on Tuesday.

The man is reported to have punched two soldiers five times on Sept 10, 2022. The incident occurred at an army camp in Gyeonggi Province when two soldiers refused to say “Long live Kim Jong Un, Long live Putin!”

Mr Kim is North Korea’s leader, while Mr Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia.

The man is said to have subjected the two lower-ranking soldiers to habitual abuse and violence.

He also forced soldiers to attend religious events. If they refused, the man started strangling and twisting their arms.

The man also reportedly handed out unusual punishments, including physical punishment while naked in front of other soldiers.

It was found that the abuse affected a total of 10 victims in the same military camp.

In its ruling, the court said that, “Although the crime is serious, the attacker admitted to all of his offences and all the victims expressed their intention not to punish him during the investigation”. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK

9. [Top Envoy] S. Korea is done with ‘strategic ambiguity,’ ex-envoy says

Excerpts:

“Given the current geopolitical landscape, we can no longer tolerate the kind of ambiguity seen in the previous government. No, that’s not doable,” said Ahn Ho-young in a recent interview with The Korea Herald.

The envoy, who also served as first vice foreign minister, was referring to last December’s unveiling of the Indo-Pacific strategy, President Yoon Suk Yeol’s signature foreign policy. It aims to regroup like-minded countries sharing similar values like democracy to solidify the rules-based international order.

That was a pivot away from Yoon’s predecessor, who had embraced a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on the US-China rivalry, a decision that critics say tries to have it both ways by not picking sides. Neither the US nor China was as happy with the approach, as the previous Moon Jae-in government had hoped.

[Top Envoy] S. Korea is done with ‘strategic ambiguity,’ ex-envoy says

koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · October 25, 2023

War in Middle East complicates US strategy as it grapples with uncertainties involving Russia, China

By Choi Si-young

Published : Oct. 25, 2023 - 14:27

Ahn Ho-young, South Korea’s former ambassador to the US, poses for a photo ahead of an interview with The Korea Herald at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies in central Seoul on Sept. 7. (Im Se-jun/The Korea Herald)

Heightening threats from North Korea to use its nuclear weapons against South Korea make a clear case for the South to stick closer to the US and its nuclear umbrella, according to South Korea’s former ambassador to the US.

“Given the current geopolitical landscape, we can no longer tolerate the kind of ambiguity seen in the previous government. No, that’s not doable,” said Ahn Ho-young in a recent interview with The Korea Herald.

The envoy, who also served as first vice foreign minister, was referring to last December’s unveiling of the Indo-Pacific strategy, President Yoon Suk Yeol’s signature foreign policy. It aims to regroup like-minded countries sharing similar values like democracy to solidify the rules-based international order.

That was a pivot away from Yoon’s predecessor, who had embraced a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on the US-China rivalry, a decision that critics say tries to have it both ways by not picking sides. Neither the US nor China was as happy with the approach, as the previous Moon Jae-in government had hoped.

No free lunch

Fighting off North Korea -- a “matter of survival” -- requires Washington’s support to contain Pyongyang with the US nuclear umbrella, Ahn said of the strategy also known as extended deterrence. The two allies are building on that deterrence to discourage a North Korean nuclear strike.

That strategy, which North Korea has feared most, got an upgrade at a White House summit in April where Yoon and US President Joe Biden shook hands on Seoul having a bigger say in how Washington manages its nuclear assets. Washington’s commitment to delivering on the plan, Ahn said, depends on how much support Seoul is willing to lend to its biggest ally.

“There’s no free lunch. Imagine two Koreas: One that’s clearly ready to get on board and the other that’s sending mixed signals. It’s clear where Washington will place trust,” Ahn said, suggesting Seoul should make it clear where it stands.

South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons, instead of relying on those of the US, is unrealistic, Ahn added.

Emboldened by voices at home, Yoon himself had openly entertained not only that but also asking the US to reverse its 1991 decision and to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. But he swore off making nuclear weapons at the April summit, signing instead the nuclear pact called the Washington Declaration.

“When push comes to shove, we’ll have to double down on American redeployment. But for now, we have a very effective tool and framework if we use it right,” Ahn said, referring to the declaration. He underscored “joint execution and planning” as a portion of what the document says as to how the two allies will handle US nuclear operations.

“What that means is we have our say guaranteed at the table,” Ahn added.

And working-level talks are key to ensuring the nuclear pact is durable and has “real influence,” according to Ahn, who cited the recent Nuclear Consultative Group meeting in July. The get-together, set up by the pact as a regular follow-up on the deal, discussed integrating Seoul into Washington’s decision-making process on nuclear weapons.

Kim Tae-hyo, South Korea’s first deputy national security adviser, met with Kurt Campbell, the US coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs on the National Security Council. But some say higher-ranking officials should handle exchanges to come.

“More important is what they get done when they meet,” Ahn said, drawing on his experience working with NATO concerning reconstruction efforts for Afghanistan when he was ambassador to the European Union from 2011-12.

“Most of what two sides ultimately shake hands on really depends on what their working-level discussions have covered,” Ahn added. “We need to ensure lower-level conversations touch on topics and details that really matter to us.”

Taking on China challenge

Openly seeking to bolster the rules-based international order while forging closer ties with not only the US but also Japan is not the kind of initiative that also befriends China, a country that has been looking to make changes to “the US-led order.”

Yoon’s summit in August with Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the US presidential retreat in Maryland, Camp David, condemned China’s aggression, especially in the South China Sea, where Washington and Beijing are locking horns over Taiwan, the self-ruled democratic island China threatens to take over forcefully, while the US pledges its defense support.

International rules and norms set the parameters of Seoul-Beijing ties, according to Ahn, who highlighted democracy and the rule of law. “They are South Korea’s ‘core values’ much like the ‘core interests’ China says should be respected,” Ahn said.

“We go from there and make sure reciprocity comes into play,” Ahn added. “We hadn’t really made that commitment clear enough before Yoon took office. That could’ve led China to think that Korea is a pushover.”

The former ambassador to the US, whose tenure lasted from June 2013 to October 2017 overlapping with two previous administrations before Yoon, was referring to China’s economic retaliation against Seoul’s decision to host a US anti-missile shield called THAAD, a process that started in April 2017.

Former President Moon faced criticism from opponents for flirting with a delay in the battery deployment to avoid upsetting Beijing. An environmental impact study, part of the installment process, was only finished in June this year. “We shouldn’t be afraid of economic retaliation,” Ahn said.

“And China seems to understand what Yoon wants,” Ahn noted, citing reports saying China is aware of Korea’s efforts for friendlier ties. In late September, Chinese President Xi Jinping suggested a visit to Korea, which last took place in 2014 and could be a major political win for the Yoon administration amid efforts not to alienate either superpower.

At a meeting with South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo on the sidelines of the Asian Games in China’s Hangzhou, Xi also welcomed reopening trilateral summits involving Korea, Japan and China “at an appropriate time.” As this year’s host, Seoul is pushing to revive the regular summit after a four-year hiatus prompted initially by COVID-19 and later by political tensions.

“That’s a very good start to work our ties going forward, to start building on the momentum,” Ahn said.

Wars in Middle East, Ukraine

The career diplomat underscored the “worsening global security landscape,” which has been exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine and Palestinian militant group Hamas’ attack on Israel. The South Korean military has suggested that North Korea might have played a role in the tactics and weapons Hamas employed in its multipronged offensive.

The war in the Middle East, Ahn noted, complicates policy options for the US as it seeks to not only stop a wider conflict, but prevent Russia and China from taking advantage of unfolding certainties. Avoiding a deepening humanitarian crisis is in the best interests of South Korea, according to Ahn, who suggested Seoul be ready in the meantime to take on global challenges whose implications extend far beyond the peninsula.

“That’s all the more reason we quickly but thoroughly follow up on our own plan drawn up a year ago, despite some roadblocks we might encounter along the way,” Ahn said. Foreign Minister Park Jin said in a recent interview with The Korea Herald that a clearer blueprint to deliver on the Indo-Pacific strategy might be rolled out in December to mark the first anniversary of the policy unveiling.

About Ahn

Ahn Ho-young is a former career diplomat with 40 years of experience including serving as vice foreign minister and ambassador to the United States and the European Union. In his earlier years, he had handled trade relations.

Upon leaving the ministry in 2018, he was named president of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, where he finished his term in 2022 and is now a board member. He is also a chair professor of North Korean Studies at Kyungnam University, teaching at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, the university’s think tank in Seoul.

The Korea Herald publishes a series of interviews with South Korea’s former and current top diplomats who have played a central role in shaping the country’s foreign policies to confront the complexities of an increasingly contested international order while managing its historical relationships with allies and neighbors, for lasting peace beyond the Korean Peninsula. This is the third installment. -- Ed

koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · October 25, 2023

10. North Korean programmers used a hosted laptop to freelance online, says FBI

North Korean programmers used a hosted laptop to freelance online, says FBI

northkoreatech.org · by Martyn Williams · October 24, 2023

The US and South Korean governments have been increasingly sounding an alarm about the unwitting hiring of North Korean IT workers through online platforms. Court papers unsealed this week detail the lengths to which the IT workers go to disguise their North Korean affiliation.

The story begins in August 2019 when the Federal Bureau of Investigations interviewed an individual in the US who held an account at a US-based “global freelancing platform.” The court filing doesn’t detail the name of the website but describes it as “an online marketplace where businesses advertise for independent professionals or freelance workers, who in turn can find work in a variety of industries, including software development and information technology.”

During the interview, this person described a deal with a second individual, through which the second individual would be able to carry out work through the former’s account on the freelancing platform.

As part of the deal, the interviewee purchased a laptop and kept it connected to the Internet in their home. The second individual could use remote access software to connect through the laptop to the freelancing platform. The deal eventually grew to four laptops, for which the individual was paid $100 per month per laptop. They also took a commission from money earned through the platform, according to the court papers.

The setup is more complex than using a virtual private network (VPN) but also probably more difficult to detect. The internet protocol (IP) addresses of many VPN networks are well known, and traffic from them can be filtered for additional scrutiny, whereas access from a domestic US Internet connection is much less likely to draw attention.

After the information technology (IT) freelancing work was done, payment was deposited into the account of the individual who owned the freelancing account. They took a slice of the earnings and remitted the remainder to via an online payment account registered with a “126.com” email address, a popular Chinese email provider.

The court papers said the answer to the payment account’s security question was “yinxing,” noted as Chinese for “Silver Star.”. It’s one of several links to Silver Star outlined in the papers that assert all the accounts and workers involved are linked to Yanbian Silverstar.

Yanbian Silverstar Network Technology Co., Ltd. is a Jilin-based software development company sanctioned by the US in 2018. The company, also known as “China Silver Star” or “延边银星网络科技有限公司” has a North Korean CEO, Jong Song Hwa (정성화), and a sister company in Vladivostok, Russia, called Volasys Silver Star. Both companies are North Korean-controlled and are active in IT outsourcing work, according to the US government, which asserts they have earned “millions of dollars” for the country.

In the specific case involving the laptop, a total of $85,000 was remitted to individual two from individual one between April 2018 and October 2019, according to the court papers.

During the investigation, the FBI also uncovered numerous Microsoft and Google accounts used in the scheme. The accounts “discussed using identities of third parties to open accounts at payment and freelancer platforms” and “used Korean language and North Korean honorifics to communicate with each other,” according to the court papers.

As part of the case, the FBI seized 17 domain names and approximately $1.5 million in payment accounts said to be controlled by Yanbian Silverstar. The domain names had been used to set up websites that looked like legitimate businesses, although they were, in fact, fake companies designed to fool people into thinking they were dealing with a reputable company.

The US and South Korean governments have been warning for some time about the danger of hiring North Korean IT workers online who use fake identities to pass as citizens of other countries. The latest case demonstrates how difficult this can be to spot, but an updated advisory offers several red flags, including an unwillingness or inability to appear on camera for an interview. Full details of the case are available in the following court filings:

Affidavit and Application for Seizure – $397k;

Affidavit and Application for Seizure – $1.1 million;

Affidavit and Application for Seizure – 5 Domain Names;

northkoreatech.org · by Martyn Williams · October 24, 2023

11. Army to Recruit Cyber Warriors (ROK)

Army to Recruit Cyber Warriors

english.chosun.com

October 25, 2023 13:21

The Army will offer new jobs to respond to growing cyber warfare and even plans to launch a cyber warriors' reserve force in 2025.

"We need to improve cyber preparedness more than ever before because of recent digitization of weapons systems," the Army said Tuesday. "We have created positions for cyber operations specialists and are looking for applicants."

/News1

From Oct. 31, the Military Manpower Administration will recruit qualified applicants among young men aged 18-28. They will be assigned to cyber operations units from next year.

Army spokesman Col. Suh Woo-suk said, "The recruitment is part of measures to increase cybersecurity."

"The Army will increase combined capabilities in cyber, artificial intelligence, and manned and unmanned weapons systems in response to changing aspects of war," he added.

• Copyright © Chosunilbo & Chosun.com

english.chosun.com

12. Gov't urged to prepare for rise in N. Korean defections by sea

​More are coming?

Gov't urged to prepare for rise in N. Korean defections by sea

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

A wooden boat, left, is towed by a South Korean military vessel toward a port in Yangyang, Gangwon Province, Tuesday. The boat carried four North Koreans, in what is viewed as a rare case of a defection across the inter-Korean maritime border in the East Sea. Yonhap

Rare case of maritime defection highlights dire food situation in Pyongyang, experts say

By Lee Hyo-jin

The South Korean government should brace for an increasing number of North Korean defectors in the coming months, as the latest East Sea border crossing, made by four North Koreans, indicates the deteriorating living conditions and chronic food shortages occurring in the reclusive regime, analysts said Wednesday.

On Tuesday morning, a small wooden boat carrying a group of four unidentified individuals from North Korea ― one male and three females – was picked up by the South Korean coast guard in the waters off Sokcho, Gangwon Province, according to South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff. The boat was first spotted by a South Korean fishing vessel operating some 11 kilometers from the east coast.

Defections across the maritime border are rare as it is much more dangerous than escaping via land.

The latest sea border crossing came five months after nine individuals from North Korea crossed the western maritime border.

The four North Koreans are currently under investigation by the National Intelligence Service to determine whether they are genuinely seeking to defect.

The authorities declined to share details about their identities, but some local media reports, citing witnesses, said that the group consisted of a man in his 30s, his wife, daughter and another woman in her 50s, supposedly his mother.

One of the defectors reportedly told the South Korean coast guard that they escaped their homeland “to survive,” lamenting the hard living conditions there.

Experts also assume that worsening food shortages and ongoing political oppression under the Kim Jong-un regime were the catalysts that made the family escape to the South.

“Defecting across the maritime border is way riskier and costlier than escaping via land through the border with China. The small wooden boat would cost a fortune for North Koreans,” said Cho Han-bum, a senior researcher at the state-run Korea Institute of National Unification.

“Family defections are much more dangerous than escaping alone. They have to risk everything because the whole family can get killed by the regime if they are caught,” he said.

North Korean students take part in a rally denouncing 'defectors from the North' as they march from the Pyongyang Youth Park Open-Air Theatre to Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang, June 8, 2020. AFP-Yonhap

Park Won-gon, a professor of North Korean studies at Ewha Womans University, gave a similar analysis.

“The rice price in ‘jangmadang’ (outdoor markets) is the barometer of food prices in North Korea. Some internal sources say that the price soared to an all-time high in the last five years,” he said.

As to why these groups of defectors chose the riskier route, Cho replied, “The surveillance measures near the North Korea-China border have intensified in recent months. I think we will be seeing more defectors escaping by sea.”

"As the current (South Korean) government's stance toward North Korean escapees is to accept them for humanitarian reasons, the authorities should make more efforts to ensure the safety of those traveling by boat. A lot of the North Korean small boats attempting to cross the Eastern Sea border don't make it to South Korea. They sink or get carried across to the coast of Japan," he added.

Park said, "As seen by China's recent mass repatriation of North Korean defectors, escaping via China is becoming an increasingly dangerous option for them."

The professor predicted that the number of North Korean escapees will increase as the reclusive regime reopens its border from COVID-19 lockdowns, but commented that it remains to be seen whether the scale will return to pre-pandemic levels when the figure reached over 1,000 per year.

According to recent data released by the Ministry of Unification, the number of North Korean defectors coming to South Korea more than tripled in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period of 2022.

From January to September this year, a total of 139 North Koreans defected to the South, up sharply from 42 in the same period last year.

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

13. 11 Cases of Psychological Warfare Throughout History

All warfare is psychological.

Reference PSYOP in the Korean War see my chapter (9) in Dr Bruce Bechtol's book (The Quest for a Unified Strategies for the Cultural and Interagency Process) at this link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection_%28IA_questforunifiedk00bech%29.pdf

Excerpt:

Bottom Line

From cats to fake ghosts, and now, social media—these are all instruments in psychological warfare throughout history.

It may sound like they have nothing in common, but there are at least two similar grounds: one, they were all implemented with creativity, and two, they appeal to people’s emotions.

Psychological warfare continues to this day, with a more modern and more dangerous approach, as social media can easily shape millions of people’s opinions and outlooks.

11 Cases of Psychological Warfare Throughout History

historydefined.net · by Carl Seaver · October 25, 2023

When people talk about war, they immediately relate it to the use of guns and other available weapons at the time. While this is not necessarily incorrect, war is not limited to one type of physical violence.

Guns and ammunition are just one element of war. It also involves complex political strategies and intricate tactical operations across various countries over decades or centuries of history. War is an art, and it can be fought psychologically, too.

In this article, we will discuss psychological warfare and the most famous examples of it in human history from 500 BC to the present.

What Is Psychological Warfare?

Encyclopedia Britannica describes psychological warfare as the use of propaganda that is generally intended to demoralize the enemy or break their will. No war can be fought on a psychological level alone, as it always comes with military and political tactics.

Also known as psywar, this tactic has been used in wars for centuries.

Why does a warring party use psychological warfare? It’s one way to gain an advantage without losing lives or using too many guns and other valuable resources. According to Stanford University, the goal of a psywar is to take advantage of the most personal characteristics of humans in a scientific manner.

Psychological warfare leverages the following:

• Deceit
• Fear
• Hate
• Humiliation
• Loneliness
• Pain

When these human emotions are exploited, those affected will be too demoralized to continue fighting. This is what psychological warfare strategies center on.

The specifics of these tactics vary greatly. There are so many ways to hit different human emotions. This will become even clearer once we discuss the various cases of psychological warfare through hundreds of years of historic battles and wars.

Cases of Psychological Warfare Throughout History

From elephants to viral Facebook posts, psychological warfare has changed throughout history. But one thing has remained the same: the creativity.

As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War: “The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”

The following are the most famous examples of psychological warfare leveraged in various battles over the years:

1. Battle of Pelusium (525 BCE)

The Battle of Pelusium is remembered as the war won by cats. According to Greek Historian Herodotus, the war between the Achaemenid Empire, or ancient Iranian Empire, and ancient Egypt started with a doctor.

The two empires used to be on good terms, which prompted Persian King Cambyses II to ask Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis II for an ophthalmologist. In good faith, Amasis II sent an Egyptian doctor to Persia—he was not amused by the forced labor.

Meeting Between Cambyses II and Psammetichus III

To get back at his pharaoh, the doctor advised Cambyses II to ask Amasis II for his daughter’s hand in marriage. Amasis did not want to lose his daughter to Persia. So instead, he sent the daughter of another pharaoh named Nitetis and claimed her as his own. Once Nitetis was in Persia, she divulged the trickery, and Cambyses was predictably insulted.

Persia then declared war against Egypt. With Persia’s experience in warfare, their success was expected. The country also leaned on Egyptians’ well-known religiosity.

Egyptians venerated animals, especially cats. One of their goddesses is Bastet, who was often depicted with the body of a woman and the head of a cat. Bastet protects the home and is the goddess of fertility and childbirth. Cats were considered Bastet’s own, which is why they cannot be harmed. People would risk going into burning buildings just to save cats.

Armed with that knowledge of their reverence for cats’ lives, Cambyses had his advancing soldiers armed with shields painted with the likeness of Bastet. Moreover, the frontlines brought cats and other animals Egyptians considered sacred: dogs, sheep, and ibises. The Egyptians did not want to hurt the animals, so some of them ran away from the battle as others were massacred.

This is how one can technically say that cats led the victory of the Achaemenid Empire.

2. King Alexander the Great of Macedon (336 – 323 BCE)

Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Great, is one of the most successful conquerors in history. He was king of Macedon between 336 and 323 BCE.

He was just 20 when he started ruling, and by the time he was 30, he had created one of the largest empires in the world, which stretched from Greece to northwestern India. Alexander the Great got his name because he was largely undefeated in battle.

But part of his success is due to psychological warfare—he was known as one of the best to do it. Alexander the Great was known for his political and cultural manipulation. He enforced Hellenistic ideologies in his conquests to encourage unity among diverse peoples.

When Alexander the Great invaded Persia, he married the late Persian King Darius III’s daughter Roxana. He also commanded eight of his officers to marry Persian women. All of his soldiers who married locals were paid to do so. This way, Alexander had many eyes within the country, and any talks of rebellion were quickly quelled.

Spanish conquistadors of the 15th and 16th centuries copied this strategy of marrying locals from the Macedonian king’s playbook.

Near the river Granicus, Alexander the Great killing Mithridates, son-in-law of the King of Persia 220 BC

3. Second Punic Wars (218 – 201 BCE)

War horses were mainstays in wars for centuries. Some warring groups in the global south still use horses in fights.

However, there is nothing like war elephants when it comes to warfare. They are effective means of transportation as they could ferry people along with large equipment and supplies. War elephants also stomp on soldiers in their way and hurt people with their tusks.

A war elephant’s sheer size alone already has a psychological impact on its foes.

The first record of war elephants was in 331 BCE, during the Battle of Gaugamela between Alexander the Great and the Army of Macedon and King Darius III and the Persian Army. The Persians had 15 Asian war elephants but still lost the battle.

The most famous and successful use of war elephants happened in the Second Punic War. Hannibal, a Carthaginian general, led 90,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry across the Ebro River into Saguntum to declare war against Rome.

Hannibal crossing the Rhône (1878), by Henri Motte

Around 40 war elephants joined the troops, but half of them perished during the march from Spain through the Alps and Italy. The remaining elephants successfully caused panic in the Roman cavalry and Gallic allies, which led to Hannibal’s victories in Ticinus, Trebia, and Trasimene.

After years of facing various elephantine invasions, the Romans learned their lesson. By 202 BCE, they simply allowed the elephants to pass through to inflict minimal damage. In their succeeding battles, the Romans also began to use war elephants.

4. Mongol Empire (13th – 14th century)

Genghis Khan is one of the most feared and famous military leaders and strategists in history.

He founded the Mongol Empire. This became the largest contiguous land nation in the 13th and 14th centuries. Khan successfully invaded tribes, and a large part of China and Central Asia, without using a large military force.

Khan and the Mongols implemented intense psychological warfare throughout their invasions. They spread terror and fear in towns and cities. This was in a bid to make them surrender instead of becoming victims of aggression. Many surrendered and paid tribute for fear of being ransacked. This would mean losing many lives and destroying many structures within their cities.

For those who refused to surrender, the Mongols would destroy their homes and kill many people. A few are allowed to flee so they can spread the word about the terror brought by Khan and the Mongol Empire. By the time the Mongols reached a new town, the residents had already heard of their propensity for massacre, so they would instead surrender peacefully.

A depiction of a Mongol siege, from the 14th century work Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh by Rashid al-Din. Early 14th century

Of course, psychological warfare was also complemented by the Mongols’ top-notch military skills. They were adept horsemen who had well-rounded capabilities, including archery and tactical formations. They were terrific scouts and spies.

The Mongols were also great at deception, which is another form of psychological warfare. A group would flank its enemies on all fronts, which would give the impression the invading army is so much larger than reality. The Mongols were skilled at luring the enemy into vulnerable situations to force them to surrender.

5. World War I (1914 – 1918)

War pundits consider World War I as the beginning of modern psychological warfare. The Great War was one of the deadliest conflicts in the world.

It was the war between the Allies, which consisted of France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States, Italy, and Japan, against the Central Powers of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria.

Both parties, particularly the Germans and the British, made use of newspapers, leaflets, and other means to publish propaganda against the other side. British pilots dropped postcards on German lines. The postcards were supposedly written by German prisoners of war who claimed to have been treated fairly well by the enemy.

Germans, for their part, tried to stir up trouble with Ireland and India, both of which had a tumultuous relationship with the British. It didn’t work.

The British successfully incited the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, which weakened the Central Powers. Other factors led to Quadruple’s loss in World War I, and the Arab Revolt certainly didn’t help its cause.

6. Nazi Germany (1933 – 1945)

The Germans didn’t take their defeat in World War I well. It was humiliating, and there were “frantic efforts” to save the prestige of the German Army.

When Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party introduced dictatorship in Germany, their image became everything. They utilized mass media to show off the Nazi’s military skills. Hitler, who was known for his gift of public speaking, was also heavily showcased to sway public opinion.

The Nazis kept a tight hold on their country and threatened neighboring territories. They seized Austria and Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. And other countries ceded territories to the Nazis out of fear.

Hitler created the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which shaped public opinion. While the Nazis were feared, the Jews were persecuted.

Picture postcard with propaganda painting of a Adolf Hitler by Ludwig Hohlwein (German poster artist 1874–1949), Munich, Nazi Germany

Nazi messaging was successfully propagated through books, films, and theater. Radio broadcasts only communicated what the Nazis wanted the public to hear. Even art and music were controlled by Hitler and his military. Pundits said Hitler was greatly influenced by the psychological warfare the British employed during World War I.

While the Nazis were feared, the massacre and maltreatment of Jews eventually sparked international condemnation. This was the prelude to World War II.

7. World War II (1939 – 1945)

The Second World War was the deadliest conflict in history, with an estimated 70 to 85 million fatalities. The two sides were the Allies, which was composed of the United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, and China, and the Axis, which was led by Germany and had Italy and Japan as partners.

As deadly as it was, the psychological war between the two parties was also quite intense. The British sharpened its propaganda machine during World War I, and Nazi Germany had been a pro at it for years.

The United States also upped its propaganda machine with General Douglas MacArthur at the helm. He was the head of the Psychological Warfare Branch.

He organized the distribution of leaflets in the Philippines castigating Japanese soldiers’ presence in the country. The branch also dropped leaflets in Japan to blast its government’s role in World War II while praising Americans’ position in the war.

A leaflet addressed to Japanese civilians read: “Do not believe falsehoods about American cruelty. See for yourselves! Select representatives to come forward and observe the treatment they will receive. Then these representatives can return and guide you to safety. You will receive food, water, clothing, and medical treatment.”

The British also employed deception in their psychological warfare. The British military released fictional orders to confuse Axis soldiers and provided faux visuals. Double agents were deployed, which earned mastermind Dudley Clarke the moniker “the greatest British deceiver of WW2.”

The Allies eventually won the psychological warfare and the war.

8. Cold War (1947 – 1991)

The end of World War II was also the beginning of the decades-long rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, known as the Cold War.

Unlike World War II, there was minimal bloodshed but heightened psychological warfare. It was a fierce battle between freedom and communism. Fatalities were indirectly attributed to the Cold War through the superpowers’ participation in proxy wars.

The American psychological warfare during the Cold War was both covert and overt. In 1947, President Harry Truman requested $400 million from Congress to provide economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey so they could remain independent amidst Communist threats. It set off a chain of psyops from both parties and their allies.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) launched the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) in 1948. Its role was to highlight Russian values through music and art while promulgating U.S. aggression. To ensure Cominform’s message was undeterred, CPSU limited locals’ communication with foreigners and the outside world.

In 1950, Truman launched the Campaign of Truth. He urged media leaders to combat every “communist lie” with the truth about freedom and democracy. So it went, the American and Soviet leaders trading propaganda disparaging the other, continuing to this day.

9. Korean War (1950 – 1953)

The Korean War is said to be a byproduct of the Cold War. It was a battle between the Soviet-backed Korean People’s Army, which eventually became North Korea, and the U.S.-backed Republic of Korea or, South Korea.

The Americans feared that the North Korean invasion was the beginning of the communist efforts of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies consisting of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Meanwhile, South Korea had U.S. support and the Western Alliance. This consisted of North Atlantic Treaty Organization members, such as France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, the United Kingdom, and many more.

United Nations leaflet attempting to demoralize North Korean enemy by asking why they would die for China or Russia, 1951

The U.S. had a propaganda team during the Korean War, which received advice from a member of the psywar team against Japan during World War II.

According to a document by Major Albert C. Brauer, they prepared many anti-communism leaflets for the Korean War. But many of the recipients were illiterate, so they had to change the strategy and create leaflets with cartoons and illustrations instead of words.

The Korean War ended with the creation of a two-mile-wide demilitarized zone. This serves as a boundary between North and South Korea and is maintained to this day. The nations are wholly independent, with South Korea remaining a democracy and North Korea continuing to be a communist country.

10. Vietnam War (1955 – 1975)

The Vietnam War was between North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It is considered another proxy of the Cold War. The Soviet Union and its communist allies supported the North, and the U.S. supported the South.

This time, the U.S. lost the proxy war despite the extensive use of psyops. Vietnam also won, as it united the North and South under one Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

While the U.S. lost, its psyops known as Operation Wandering Soul became infamous. In Vietnamese culture, it is important to show respect for the dead through a proper burial. The lack of decent or honorable burial would cause the soul to wander around aimlessly on earth after death.

Armed with this knowledge, American engineers created Ghost Tape Number Ten with the help of South Vietnamese soldiers who dubbed eerie sounds of wandering ghosts. The tape was broadcast late at night in areas controlled by Viet Cong soldiers.

The operation was only briefly successful, as the Viet Cong eventually realized it was just a recording and started firing in the general direction of the broadcast.

11. Social Media

Social media is the current medium for various psyops.

For example, there has long been criticism against Israel for its mistreatment of Palestinians. Hamas and Hezbollah are militant groups that have been adept at showcasing their causes on social media.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), for its part, created a social media team comprising young tech-savvy individuals who monitor Hamas and Hezbollah’s internet activities. The IDF releases its own propaganda to counter these sentiments and get people to join their side.

And who could forget the Russian intervention in the 2016 U.S. elections? According to intelligence reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin masterminded Project Lakhta. This was a psyop meant to elevate Donald Trump’s candidacy and harm former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

The operation involved troll farms that created thousands of social media accounts to promote discord online, provide support for Trump, and vilify Clinton. Since Trump prevailed in the 2016 elections, one may say Putin’s turn at psychological warfare triumphed.

Another attempt was made in the 2020 U.S. elections, but Microsoft got wind of the operation.

The militant group ISIS also knows how to leverage social media effectively. In 2014, the group only had 1,500 members with second-hand weapons they stole or bought from the black market. But the group was able to sow fear and attract new members online. They had passionate supporters who followed their propaganda promoted by bots. The group even had a hashtag: #AllEyesOnISIS.

Then there’s Ukraine, which is still fighting a war with Russia. According to psychologists, half of the war Ukraine is fighting is online. Russia, after all, has become a master of the online game.

Bottom Line

From cats to fake ghosts, and now, social media—these are all instruments in psychological warfare throughout history.

It may sound like they have nothing in common, but there are at least two similar grounds: one, they were all implemented with creativity, and two, they appeal to people’s emotions.

Psychological warfare continues to this day, with a more modern and more dangerous approach, as social media can easily shape millions of people’s opinions and outlooks.

historydefined.net · by Carl Seaver · October 25, 2023

​14. [SPECIAL REPORT] Korean society grows more diverse but still struggles with multicultural integration

[SPECIAL REPORT] Korean society grows more diverse but still struggles with multicultural integration

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

Students cast their votes during a class meeting at Sunil Middle School in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, Sept. 5. The meeting was led by Anastasiya Yugay, left in the front, the class president from Uzbekistan who mediated between Korean and Russian-speaking students. At Sunil, 70 percent of the students come from multicultural backgrounds. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Gov't grapples with migrant policy amid demographic crisis

Editor’s note

This is the first in a four-part series on Korea's policy for immigrants as the country grapples with an aging and shrinking population. The series, funded by the Korea Press Foundation, features articles, photographs and short documentary films as well as digital interactive content.

By Kim Bo-eun

ANSAN, Gyeonggi Province - Russian words reverberate through the halls of Sunil Middle School in the city of Ansan in Gyeonggi Province. Not only do students talk to each other in the language, but some classes, such as math, are also taught in Russian, presenting a rare sight in Korea’s highly homogenous society.

At Sunil, 70 percent of the students come from multicultural backgrounds. And students from Russian-speaking countries account for more than 74 percent of them. Sunil has students from Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, as new students continue to enroll at the school after their parents came to Korea seeking a higher income and better living conditions.

The proportion of students at Sunil Middle School from multicultural households has continued to grow over the years, from 11 percent in 2015 to 44 percent in 2019 and 70.2 percent in 2023. Sunil was named a multicultural international innovation school in 2017, enabling it to receive grants for extra-curricular activities.

The growing percentage of foreign students reflects an increasing number of immigrants in Ansan, who came to Korea seeking jobs at Banwol and Sihwa industrial complexes, which are among the country’s largest manufacturing hubs housing factories for small businesses.

Ansan is home to the greatest percentage of foreign residents among comparable city-level administrative districts in the nation. As of September, the industrial city is home to foreigners who come from a total of 118 countries. A total of 12.9 percent of the city’s residents are foreigners who mostly come from China and Russian-speaking countries, as well as Vietnam, according to Ansan city data. In contrast, foreign residents account for 4 percent of the total population of Korea.

Students listen during a class meeting at Sunil Middle School in Ansan, Gyeonggi Province, Sept. 5. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Ansan’s diversity, meanwhile, has also created a racial divide.

With the foreign population concentrated in the western district of the city, some Korean parents change their home address to send their children to a more homogenous school in an affluent neighborhood, due to concerns that their academic achievements may be affected. This is partially based on prejudice against schools with a high percentage of multicultural students.

The language barrier and cultural differences weigh on relationships among students, class participation and academic performance.

Yugay Anastasiya, a second-year student who was born in Uzbekistan and came to Ansan during elementary school, is among the better-adjusted students.

“I volunteered as class president, because I wanted to help out the students who do not speak Korean,” she told The Korea Times. Yugay continues to receive private lessons after school to improve her Korean in order to blend in.

As class president, Yugay is concerned about the image of her school.

“I don’t want people to say bad things about my school,” she said, referring to stereotypes that have been caused by delinquent students.

“Schools, the local government and the citizens should all work together to correct these perceptions,” Lim Mi-eun, a teacher in charge of multicultural education at Sunil, said.

Lim Mi-eun, a teacher at Sunil Middle School in charge of multicultural education, teaches Russian to third grade students. Sunil is the only middle school in Korea that includes a Russian language class in its curriculum. The class was added to enable Korean students to communicate with the substantial number of students coming from Russian-speaking countries. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

As ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities continue to flood into Ansan, many teens are left unable to enter school, because they arrive after the school year has begun. Those that cannot be accepted by schools go to youth centers run by the local government.

This is not only a challenge Ansan faces, but a key task for local governments and education offices that seek to attract foreigners to fill a shrinking workforce.

The demographics of Ansan could show the direction Korea is headed as the country grapples with an aging and shrinking population. Korea’s fertility rate hit a record low of 0.78 last year ― which means women who are able to give birth are not even having one baby on average. The working-age population between 15 to 64 is projected to halve by 2070 after peaking in 2019.

Korea had a total of 2.25 million foreign residents as of 2022, accounting for 4.37 percent of the total population. Korea is close to being defined as a multicultural society, where the percentage of people from multicultural backgrounds exceeds 5 percent of the total population. Migrants refer to people who relocate to another country in search of work and better living conditions, while this relocation is permanent for immigrants.

Image Caption

Becoming a multicultural society

Korea has just started taking measures to open its borders further to foreign workers and make it easier for them to settle here.

Foreign workers, mostly from Southeast and Central Asia, have been filling up labor shortages suffered by the manufacturing, farming, fisheries and construction sectors in provincial areas. These workers enter Korea with an E-9 visa under the Employment Permit System introduced in 2004. The number of workers entering the country with that visa has grown over the past several years. The government doubled the E-9 visa quota this year as more sectors are suffering from labor shortages.

The number of foreign workers residing in Korea with the E-9 visa has also been growing over the past decade, excluding 2020 to 2022, which were the three years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government in September unveiled measures that would facilitate skilled workers with the E-9 visa to obtain E-7-4 status, by easing requirements and boosting the quota. The E-7-4 visa enables the workers to stay for longer periods and bring their family members here. The workers, however, have to stay at their workplace for two more years to be able to obtain that status.

"The measure has not only aided businesses to stably hire skilled foreign workers, where the labor shortage is worsening, but also expanded the opportunity for foreign workers who have worked hard for businesses and social integration to settle in Korea," a justice ministry official said.

"We will set up various visa policies to help attract not only skilled workers, but also capable individuals in the science technology sector, who can contribute to national interest," the official added.

Krishna Adhikari is welcomed by his daughter, Krishti, after coming home from work on a weekday evening on Aug. 31. Adhikari works at an R&D center at a compay that develops reproductive genetic solutions, after obtaining a master's degree in management. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

The government hopes to attract more immigrants such as Krishna Adhikari from Nepal, who works at an R&D center. Adhikari came to Korea in 2011 after completing university in his home country. He worked at a textile factory for seven years until he decided to build up his career here.

“I thought I couldn’t keep working only at a factory,” Adhikari said. “I also wanted to know how universities in Korea teach students and thought I would be able to build relationships with Koreans at school because this was difficult where I worked.”

He went on to pursue a master’s degree in management and graduated with a focus on artificial intelligence. He now works for a company in Suwon that develops reproductive genetic solutions.

Adhikari purchased a home in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi Province, where he lives with wife, daughter and newborn son. Over the course of 12 years, Adhikari upgraded his status from the E-9 visa to F-5 status which grants him permanent residency here. He plans to build up his career further.

“I want to set up a business in the coming years, incorporating internet of things into manufacturing to tackle the labor shortage at companies that are struggling,” Adhikari said.

Krishna Adhikari watches his daughter, Krishti, study Korean, as his wife Rupa Tiwari and newborn son Krizan look on. The government unveiled measures last month to help migrant workers get settled in Korea, like Adhikari has done. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

There are still some challenges for foreigners like Adhikari, who work and pay tax as they live in Korea. Even though he had F-2 residency status, he was denied a mortgage when he visited banks prior to purchasing his house.

Financial firms currently offer loans to foreigners, but the interest rates tend to be higher for them than for locals. The rates reach up to 20 percent.

“It is difficult for foreigners to get loans. I ended up borrowing from my friends and I finished paying them back,” Adhikari said.

Local governments, even those with large percentages of foreign residents, have yet to offer equal benefits in educational subsidies. Under current regulations on assisting multicultural families, only families that include a Korean parent are eligible for various forms of support.

Adhikari’s daughter in first grade in elementary school learned Korean, made friends and adapted to school life. Still, Adhikari’s primary concern about his future in Korea centers on his daughter.

“I am worried about her keeping up with classes that are taught in Korean, and also in case she will be discriminated at school for being a foreigner,” he said.

Foreigners are seen at Ansan's Multicultrual Village Special Zone on Aug. 31. Ansan was home to foreigners from 118 countries as of September. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Tasks ahead

Multiple government ministries have been in charge of a range of policies related to foreigners and migrants here. Korea has not had an integrated agency to be in charge of related affairs. This has led to inefficiencies and loopholes for migrants the government seeks to assist and further attract. The Ministry of Justice is now preparing to set up an immigration agency.

But there is a long road ahead for Korea to ready itself to become a more welcoming country for migrants.

According to a Statistics Korea survey released last month, 19.7 percent of foreigners who resided in Korea in the past year said they experienced discrimination. Shops, restaurants, banks and their workplaces were the most-cited as places where this happened.

For the respondents, the language barrier and loneliness were the greatest difficulties they faced living in Korea.

“Korea’s stance toward foreign workers had remained unchanged for decades. The government has not regarded foreign workers as migrants but as providers of labor,” Park Sun-hee, a general manager at the Gyeonggi Institute of Research of Policy Development for Migrants’ Human Rights, said.

Jang Han-up, director of Ewha Womans University's Center for Multicultural Research, said educating the public is essential.

"The public needs to understand that the dire population situation is why Korea needs to welcome foreign migrants. Education needs to be offered at schools for students, as well as for government workers who deal with policies regarding foreigners, and the general public," he said, noting the mass media plays an important role.

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

​15. N. Korea to close its embassy in Uganda: report 

Cost savings? Must mean the embassy is not producing sufficient reviews to support the regime. The nK diplomats must be failing at their illicit activities.

N. Korea to close its embassy in Uganda: report

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

Uganda's President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, center, and North Korea's Ambassador to Kampala, Jong Tong-hak, left, pose for a photo at State House, Entebbe, as Jong, the outgoing envoy, paid a courtesy call to him, in this Oct. 24 photo from Museveni's X, formerly known as Twitter. Yonhap

North Korea plans to close its embassy in Uganda as part of efforts to raise the operating efficiency of the country's organizations abroad, a Ugandan media report has said.

North Korea's Ambassador to Uganda, Jong Tong-hak, announced the plan during his courtesy call to Uganda's President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Ugandan newsmagazine, The Independent, reported Tuesday.

Jong "informed him that North Korea has taken a strategic measure to reduce the number of embassies in Africa, Uganda inclusive in order to increase the efficiency of the country's external institutions," the report said.

North Korea's embassy in Equatorial Guinea will handle the country's diplomatic affairs with Uganda, it added.

The exact reason behind the North's planned embassy closure in Uganda is not known, but it could be related to economic difficulties caused by prolonged global sanctions on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.

In 2016, North Korea withdrew its military officers from Uganda after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni pledged to cut all military ties with North Korea in a surprise announcement during summit talks with then South Korean President Park Geun-hye.

Museveni has visited Pyongyang three times and met with North Korea's founder Kim Il-Sung, the late grandfather of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

North Korea and Uganda set up a diplomatic relationship in 1963, but they re-established it in July 1972, eight years after cutting ties in 1964 for an unknown reason.

Pyongyang has been strengthening its ties with Uganda and other African nations as it faces diplomatic isolation under multiple United Nations Security Council sanctions.

North Korea's close relations with some African countries date back to the days of Kim Il-sung, who was active in establishing friendly ties with African nations amid the Non-Aligned Movement against imperialism in the late 20th century. (Yonhap)

The Korea Times · October 25, 2023

16. ＜Inside N. Korea＞Opium addicts rise again as stimulants remain almost completely unavailable…Why? The police quickly clamp down on manufacture of drug

​What would you do if you lived in hell?

＜Inside N. Korea＞Opium addicts rise again as stimulants remain almost completely unavailable…Why? The police quickly clamp down on manufacture of drug

asiapress.org

Society / Economy

2023.10.25

<?xml encoding=”utf-8” ??>

This picture shows a sign put up by the Chinese authorities on the border that reads: “Smuggling and the Sale of Illicit Drug Prohibited.” China was faced with the threat posed by stimulants and illicit drugs smuggled in from North Korea. Taken by ISHIMARU Jiro in July 2017.

Rising addiction to opium has recently become a social problem in North Korea, leading the national police agency to intensify its crackdowns on the use and distribution of the drug. A reporting partner in the northern part of the country gave the following report in mid-October. (KANG Ji-won)

◆ Stimulants no longer available due to halt in import of raw materials from China

Opium poppy has long been used in North Korea for medicinal purposes. In many cases, people would cultivate opium poppy in their house gardens. In general, North Korean society’s view of the use of opium was so lenient that the government only handed out light punishments; as a result, opium addiction was not particularly a social problem.

The rapid rise in opium addiction began after the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. There were two reasons for this. The first was that stimulants, which had long been widely used in North Korea, could no longer be made due to the halt in trade of raw materials from China. As a result, smugglers actively began to distribute opium to replace stimulants.

Second, the rise in opium addiction rose after opium began to be used as a replacement for pain and fever reducers as COVID-19 spread in the country in May 2022. In response, the national police agency conducted widespread crackdowns to control the spread of the drug.

◆ Spike in opium prices as addicts increase

However, there appears to be a different reason for the recent spread of opium use. The country’s economy is in disarray, and there has been an increase in the number of people turning to the illegal manufacturing and smuggling of opium to earn cash. The reporting partner told ASIAPRESS:

“In the past, there were a lot of needles available (to inject opium), but these days people are creating and selling opium that can be consumed with alcohol. The police is conducting an intense crackdown on the cultivation of opium poppy in farm fields and the sale of the drug for medicinal purposes.”

The price of opium has also increased. The reporting partner said that one gram of opium went for 20,000 North Korean won before the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, during the height of the pandemic in North Korea, it cost 3-50,000 won. These days, 300 grams of liquid-based opium costs 70,000 won, while five injections cost 100,000 won. The price of opium has increased with the rise in addicts.

※ 1USD equals around 8500 North Korean won.

In particular, with the spread of smuggling of opium in major cities like Chongjin and Hamhung, the police are conducting intense crackdowns on medicine factories known to secretly manufacture opium products.

◆ Neighbor with glazed-over eyes unable to sit properly

“They say that if you take opium, you’ll sleep like you’re dead, and some people suffer from ungovernable emotional excess as a symptom of taking the drug. I’ve seen people around my apartment who have taken opium who have glazed-over eyes and are unable to sit properly.

“There have also been incidents that have occurred due to opium use. Someone in a nearby apartment took opium and fell out of their apartment in the middle of the night, breaking their hands and legs. The person just laughed, however, and simply fell asleep (where they had fallen). They were taken to a hospital and are now under investigation by the police. I’ve heard from an official that 14 people have been arrested for using opium recently in Hyesan.”

※ ASIAPRESS communicates with reporting partners through Chinese cell phones smuggled into North Korea.

Map of North Korea ( ASIAPRESS)

asiapress.org

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com