Crisis Management for a Conflict with North Korea
This is the best North Korea conflict crisis support available today. Predict, plan, build, prepare, train, and test in the right way.
What I learned about North Korea’s nuclear paranoia in Pyongyang
The Interpreter | English | AcademicThink | Nov. 26, 2025 | North Korea
In October 2001, North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun expressed deep concern over US Air Force movements near the Korean Peninsula, reflecting North Korea’s persistent paranoia about US military intentions. This encounter took place amidst efforts by Australia and the US to engage diplomatically with North Korea, including economic aid and discussions of broader regional integration. However, these diplomatic efforts unraveled after North Korea was exposed for reprocessing nuclear material and openly declared its nuclear weapons program shortly thereafter.
Nearly 20 years later, North Korea, under Kim Jong-un, has visibly strengthened its nuclear arsenal and openly positions itself among Asian nuclear powers, with tacit recognition from Beijing and support from Russia. Russia’s 2024 defense pact with North Korea, involving the provision of military assistance for Ukraine, marks a significant shift in regional alignments. Meanwhile, doubts about US nuclear deterrence grow in Seoul and Tokyo, with Japan reconsidering its non-nuclear stance and South Korea moving toward acquiring nuclear submarines and public support for its own nuclear arsenal increasing.
The global nuclear landscape is further complicated by the impending expiration of the US-Russia New START treaty in February 2026, with uncertain prospects for extension or verification of arms control. US statements, including President Trump’s announcement to resume nuclear testing, have unsettled the international community, despite reassurances that only “system tests” rather than nuclear detonations are planned. The erosion of norms like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty underlines the fragility of the “nuclear taboo.”
The article underscores the ongoing risk of strategic miscalculation by nuclear-armed adversaries, rooted in North Korea’s decades-old paranoia and the broader regional shifts. It calls for clear US leadership affirming extended deterrence commitments, including conventional responses, to maintain stability and prevent escalation as nuclear power dynamics in Asia evolve rapidly.