► North Korea's repeated provocations draw attention to deterrence and defense. For the first time since the division of the peninsula, a North Korean ballistic missile landed below the Northern Limit Line (NLL) near the territorial waters of the ROK (Republic of Korea).

► As of now, the key is to increase the effectiveness and reliability of extended deterrence, including the US nuclear umbrella.

► A fundamental solution is needed to prevent North Korea from advancing its nuclear weapons and missile programs while strengthening deterrence and defense capabilities, even for an accidental nuclear war.

The world is going through an inflection point. Many issues are uncertain which direction to take. We must be prepared for evolvements in the war in Ukraine, US-China relations,  global economy, climate change, and pandemics. In particular, we cannot give up on resolving the issue of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and missiles as our survival hangs on it, no matter how difficult it is. The 3Ds of deterrence, defense, and denuclearization must drive each other to greater development.

North Korea's repeated provocations draw attention to deterrence and defense. For the first time since the division of the peninsula, a North Korean ballistic missile landed below the Northern Limit Line (NLL) near the territorial waters of the ROK (Republic of Korea). Recent North Korean missile launches were military exercises of tactical nuclear operation units directly led by Kim Jong-un. The importance of deterrence to prevent a North Korean attack and defense in case of an attack have gained more importance. North Korea exaggerates its ability to break through the ROK-US defenses. The ROK responds firmly with the United States while advancing its Three-Axis System. The ROK will not lack technical ability.

The current concern is deterrence. The farther North Korea’s nuclear weapons can reach, the more the concern will be whether the US will protect Seoul at the expense of New York. Measures such as the development of the ROK’s own nuclear weapons and the deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in ROK have been proposed because of the judgement that nuclear weapons can be countered only with nuclear weapons. Opinion polls show that support for these measures has also increased, as the fate of the ROK cannot be left to the North’s nuclear blackmail.

Efficient ways to protect the lives and interests of the ROK should be pursued. The development of own nuclear weapons is the last option, as it can lead to sanctions from the international community for violating the NPT. If there is a disagreement between the ROK and the US, overall deterrence will be weakened. Likewise, the introduction of US tactical nuclear weapons must be considered in the context of US-China relations and US-Russia relations, the weapons’ practical effectiveness and the possibility of divided public opinion in Korea.

As of now, the key is to increase the effectiveness and reliability of extended deterrence, including the US nuclear umbrella. Deterrence is a matter of perception, along with ability. It is necessary to refine the integrated deterrence strategy according to various scenarios, including the ROK-US extended deterrence exercises, the forward deployment of US strategic bombers and nuclear weapons, and the ROK-US-Japan missile defense exercises. The more the ROK and the US strengthen cooperation on key issues, the more reliable the US's extended deterrence becomes. Cooperation on semiconductors and the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a good example. In fact, the most reliable guarantee of deterrence is the US Forces in Korea (USFK). If North Korea attacks, the US will engage automatically from the beginning. A good reference is the case of NATO allies’ forces deployed in Poland and the Baltic states to deter Russian invasion. Thus, the deterrence role of the USFK needs to be strengthened.

As North Korea has completed preparations for its seventh nuclear test, countermeasures are now a major task. China has taken North Korea's nuclear tests seriously in the past as it is also affected by nuclear pollution. However, it is unclear whether China will cooperate with the adoption of another Security Council resolution, given the current US-China relationship. China complains that new sanctions will give a burden only to it and attributes blame to the U.S.

In May, China and Russia exercised double vetoes on a Security Council resolution proposed by the United States against North Korea's missile launches. This illustrates the difficulty of adopting a new Security Council resolution. North Korean issue is affected not only by inter-Korean relations, but also by US-China and US-Russia relations. It is necessary to continuously refine the items to be included in a new Security Council resolution through consultations with the United States and other like-minded countries and present them to China and Russia.

Realistically, while continuing diplomatic efforts to deter North Korea from testing its nuclear weapons, the ROK needs to discuss multilateral international sanctions in case a new Security Council resolution is not adopted. If the ROK, the US, and Japan fail to fulfill their pledge of an unprecedentedly strong response, it will be difficult to prevent further North Korean provocations. It has been necessary to respond decisively to violations of Security Council resolutions, including the launch of short-range ballistic missiles by North Korea. Rules must be followed.

A fundamental solution is needed to prevent North Korea from advancing its nuclear weapons and missile programs while strengthening deterrence and defense capabilities, even for an accidental nuclear war. Even if deterrence and defense are strengthened, their effectiveness will decrease if North Korea increases its nuclear and missile capabilities. There is strong skepticism regarding denuclearization diplomacy with the North. It is especially true in the current situation of repeated North Korean provocations. Although progress seemed to be made in the past through such endeavors as the US-North Korea Geneva Agreed Framework, the Six-Party Talks Joint Statements, and the Singapore US-North Korea Joint Statement, the situation returned to its original state. It was like the punishment of Sisyphus.

North Korea sees nuclear weapons as a bulwark to guarantee its regime survival. Pyongyang claims that nuclear weapons cannot be exchanged for rice cakes. Moreover, the North adopted an aggressive nuclear force policy as a law at the recent Supreme People's Assembly. However, it is not an end even if North Korea refuses to denuclearize. North Korea also needs economic development and improvement in people's livelihood for the long-term survival of its regime. The problem with North Korea is that it can make nuclear weapons, but it cannot make high-tech computers. This is why North Korea wants sanctions lifted and why denuclearization must be achieved by pressure through sanctions.

In the situation where cooperation from neighboring countries is important, China's foreign policy, under President Xi Jinping's recently strengthened one-man leadership, is also a key factor. The development of the Ukrainian war will also have an impact. The strategic competition between the US and China, the US midterm elections in November, and the evolution of the Covid-19 pandemic will also play a role. In early October, North Korea fired a ballistic missile over Japan for the first time in five years, raising Japan's alert level.

We must refine the ‘audacious plan’ while strengthening deterrence and defense. Based on seamless coordination with the United States and cooperation with neighboring countries, it is necessary to prepare contingency plans for each scenario according to North Korea’s response. As former US President Eisenhower said, plans can be useless, but planning is essential. Today's plan becomes tomorrow's action. The question is the answer. We must keep asking good questions.

There is continuity in the positions of the governments involved in the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea is the most consistent, but there is also considerable stability in the positions of the United States, China, Japan and Russia. In ROK, as mentioned by the unification minister, North Korea policy is a relay, but the distinction between governments is pronounced. Talking with ROK, foreign countries consider the situation in five years. If we cannot confirm that our policies will remain consistent, our ability to convince others declines.

Just as the United States coordinated its positions through the Perry report, we should also come up with a bipartisan solution to the North Korean nuclear and missile issue, as it requires consistent efforts over a long period of time. As the saying goes that politics stops at the water’s edge, it is necessary to create a bipartisan policy for the North Korean nuclear and missile issue. We must develop a policy that looks beyond the denuclearization of North Korea, forward to reunification and engage in steady effort to this end.