[North Korea and the World] North Korea's Nuclear Weapon Strategy and the "Seoul Sea of Fire" Theory

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFJTrvmHgY

Park Won-gon, Director of the EAI Center for North Korean Studies (Professor at Ewha Womans University), analyzes North Korea's nuclear weapon use strategy following the announcement of its "frontal breakthrough" policy. Director Park explains that based on North Korea's declaration that the mission of its nuclear weapons is to "eliminate South Korea's military power" and its decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to frontline long-range artillery units organized to attack the Seoul metropolitan area, North Korea will use nuclear weapons against South Korea to seize the initiative if a war begins on the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, Director Park points out that North Korea's confidence in its nuclear capabilities and its resulting offensive actions increase the possibility of conventional military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, and suggests that South Korea must make greater efforts to strengthen its deterrence against North Korea, given that North Korea is preparing for a war based on offensive superiority.

■ Park Won-gonDirector, Center for North Korean Studies, East Asia Institute. Professor, Department of North Korean Studies, Ewha Womans University.

■ Managed and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Researcher

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

Whether you are aware of it or not, when North Korea speaks of the "Seoul Sea of Fire" theory, threatening to devastate Seoul and its surrounding areas using these artillery units, the unit mentioned is the frontline long-range artillery unit. Therefore, this unit is 100% oriented towards attacking South Korea. It is only natural that these artillery units would be targeting South Korea. Hello, and thank you once again to all of you who are watching "North Korea and the World." Today, I would like to discuss North Korea's nuclear strategy.

Recently, North Korea has been exhibiting various significant actions regarding nuclear weapons. I intend to explain the intentions behind these actions. First, the Korean Peninsula Peace Process was active in 2018-2019. Following the breakdown of the Hanoi summit in February 2019, and the final US-North Korea meeting in October, North Korea declared the "frontal breakthrough" policy at the 5th Plenary Meeting of the 7th Central Committee in December 2019, outlining four principles: self-reliance, ideological armament, nuclear advancement, and a protracted war. From North Korea's perspective, this means ceasing negotiations with the United States, strengthening internal ideological armament and self-reliance to drive the internal economy, ultimately achieving nuclear advancement, and enduring in the long term. As of 2023, North Korea's fundamental stance remains unchanged.

Following this, various statements regarding its nuclear strategy were introduced. The most crucial development began in April 2022. As I briefly mentioned before, on April 5th, Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong-un's sister, issued a statement that is highly significant. Previously, North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, its main objectives, purposes, and reasons were explained as a response to the nuclear threat from the US imperialists, who constantly sought to attack North Korea. Therefore, North Korea argued it had to develop and possess nuclear weapons for self-defense. This explanation led to considerable debate domestically, with some arguing that North Korea's nuclear weapons would never be used against South Korea. I, however, did not agree with this assertion from the outset. From a military perspective, it is clear that North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons is intended for priority use against South Korea. The debate persisted until April 2022, when Kim Yo-jong's statement definitively ended this controversy.

She stated that the mission of North Korea's nuclear force is to "annihilate the opposing military forces in one fell swoop." She also stated that it would be used to "seize the initiative in the early stages of war, extinguish the enemy's will to fight, and prevent a protracted war." In simpler terms, the "the opposing side" naturally refers to South Korea. Therefore, if a war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, Kim Yo-jong clearly stated that North Korea would use nuclear weapons in the early stages of the war to break South Korea's will to fight and prevent a protracted conflict. This statement unequivocally resolves all past debates. She also mentioned the frontline long-range artillery units, stating that the effectiveness of tactical nuclear operations by these units and the strengthening of their nuclear capabilities would be pursued. These frontline long-range artillery units are artillery formations organized by North Korea to attack Seoul and the Gyeonggi Province region. You may recall that when North Korea spoke of the "Seoul Sea of Fire" theory, threatening to devastate Seoul and its surrounding areas using its long-range artillery, the unit mentioned was the frontline long-range artillery unit. Therefore, this unit is 100% oriented towards attacking South Korea.

These units will be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons and authorized to use them. This logically implies that these artillery units will employ tactical nuclear weapons against South Korea. Subsequently, in June 2022, the 8th Central Military Commission's 3rd Enlarged Meeting further discussed these frontline units, stating that operational responsibilities were added and operational plans were established. In summary, unlike before, Kim Yo-jong has clearly indicated that North Korea intends to use these nuclear weapons against South Korea in the early stages of a war to gain the initiative. Another significant statement was made around this time, following Kim Yo-jong's statement on April 15th, in Kim Jong-un's speech at the military parade on April 25th.

Among researchers, it is considered a doctrine: Kim Jong-un directly articulated an extremely aggressive stance on nuclear weapon use. He stated that nuclear weapons have two missions: one is to prevent war, and the second is to use nuclear weapons against any entity that infringes upon North Korea's fundamental national interests. Ladies and gentlemen, we must consider what constitutes "fundamental national interests" from North Korea's perspective. I researched this concept and found it to be extremely broad. For instance, joint exercises conducted by South Korea and the United States are considered acts that harm North Korea's security interests and infringe upon its national interests. Raising human rights issues concerning North Korea is also seen as undermining its fundamental national interests. Economic sanctions, and indeed any issue raised concerning North Korea, are all considered infringements upon its fundamental national interests, according to North Korea. Therefore, we must interpret this to mean that nuclear weapons can be used at any time when these fundamental national interests are threatened. This is particularly significant as Kim Jong-un himself stated this. As you know, in the North Korean system, the directives of Kim Jong-un supersede the constitution and the Workers' Party's ideology, thus granting this statement considerable authority. Furthermore, on April 30, 2022, Kim Jong-un reiterated this in a speech: "Preemptively use nuclear weapons to thoroughly suppress and crush all threats and attempts, including escalating nuclear threats." North Korea's stance on preemptive nuclear use has been consistently stated. For example, the United States does not deny the possibility of preemptive nuclear use, but it does not actively promote it either. In contrast to this ambiguous stance, North Korea has unequivocally reaffirmed its intention to use nuclear weapons preemptively if it deems it necessary. In summary, based on these three points, I believe this carries significant implications.

First, it signifies an intention to use nuclear weapons in actual battlefield environments. This is not merely using nuclear weapons as a tool of diplomatic coercion, but rather having concrete operational plans, deploying tactical nuclear weapons to artillery units, and intending to use them to achieve their strategic war objectives in the early stages of conflict. This clearly indicates that operational plans are in place, significantly lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use and preparing for actual use, including preemptive strikes. Second, there is intentional disclosure. North Korea is disclosing its nuclear capabilities and strategy in detail, which is uncommon even among other nuclear-armed states.

Nuclear-armed states typically maintain a degree of ambiguity. However, North Korea's explicit communication of the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons suggests a clear intention to be recognized as a nuclear-armed state. Announcing a strategy to use nuclear weapons carries a significant risk of drastically escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula in the short term, including the possibility of nuclear war. Another point, which we discuss conceptually, is the "paradox of stability and instability." While generalizing this concept is difficult due to the limited number of nuclear-armed states, it is observed among countries developing nuclear weapons. A prime example is Pakistan and India.

First, it signifies an intention to use nuclear weapons in an actual battlefield environment. Therefore, it is not merely using nuclear weapons as a coercive diplomatic tool, but rather implies that there are specific operational plans, artillery units have been deployed tactically, and they intend to use them for their strategic war objectives at the outset of the conflict. This clearly indicates that because there are operational plans, the threshold for nuclear weapon use has been significantly lowered, and preparations are being made to include actual use. Second, there is an intentional disclosure. They are disclosing their nuclear capabilities and strategy in detail, which is not common practice for other countries.

As you well know, India and Pakistan have maintained a hostile relationship and developed nuclear weapons around the same time, becoming nuclear powers. Consequently, full-scale wars between nuclear-armed states are somewhat limited. This is often referred to as the "stability of nuclear deterrence" or "nuclear peace." The reason is that if a war begins, both sides face annihilation, leading them to strive to avoid nuclear war. Thus, nuclear weapons are said to bring stability. Prominent American scholars like Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and the late Kenneth Waltz have argued this point.

However, the paradox is that instability also emerges simultaneously. This instability manifests as an increased possibility of limited conventional clashes. Empirically, after Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons, conventional clashes, though limited to regions like Kashmir, have actually increased. This is what we call the paradox of stability and instability. We are observing similar phenomena in North Korea and on the Korean Peninsula. Because North Korea has strong confidence in its nuclear capabilities, it is exhibiting highly aggressive behavior towards South Korea. Starting late last year, for the first time, North Korea conducted missile provocations during the period of ROK-US joint exercises in the latter half of last year. This was an unprecedentedly aggressive act, and it has continued with provocations during this year's exercises.

This is creating tension on the Korean Peninsula. While we need to observe the trend further, the possibility of conventional war or conflict on the Korean Peninsula, as I have described, could increase, presenting an instability paradox. This is a situation we must watch very closely. Another point, which I briefly touched upon earlier, is preemptive strikes, which are extremely dangerous. For a country like North Korea, which is significantly weaker in conventional forces, possessing nuclear weapons actually increases the likelihood of nuclear use. If a military conflict erupts and war begins, and they cannot cope with their conventional forces, their propensity for preemptive nuclear use increases. Overall, I believe that the operational plans North Korea claims to have prepared are based on offensive superiority rather than defense.

Therefore, I believe it is crucial for South Korea to exert greater efforts to strengthen its deterrence than ever before. That is all for today. Please remember to like and subscribe.

I will conclude my remarks here for today. Please don't forget to like and subscribe.