1. Behind the Bamboo Curtain
An analysis of North Korean nuclear and
conventional capabilities and the policies needed to
address this threat
Eric Fischer
4/28/2013

2. 1
Introduction
With the recent nuclear test in February and increasingly bellicose rhetoric and threats of
force by Kim Jong-un, tensions between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
and the United States appear to be approaching an all-time high. While this may just be a
response to the annual joint US – South Korean military exercises many analysts fear that unlike
in the past, North Korea may be willing to act out on its threats. This is due to the fact that the
DPRK’s new leader, Kim Jong-un, is young and untested and may seek a more aggressive policy
to consolidate his power and convince his people that he is strong enough to lead them. South
Korea has also stated that any future acts of aggression made by North Korea would be
responded with necessary force, a reversal of previous South Korean policies.
These developments have led many to wonder just how real and dangerous a threat North
Korea poses to American interests and security. The United States has invested thousands of
troops and vehicles along the de-militarized zone (DMZ) that would be in grave danger should
North Korea launch an attack into the South. Also at possible risk are dozens of US bases in
South Korea, Japan and the Pacific, which could also be within striking distance of the DPRK’s
most advanced missiles. With billions of dollars of military hardware and thousands of lives at
risk, it is imperative that we develop a clear form of action to contain this possible threat to
America and the Pacific region as a whole.
The purpose of this paper will be to evaluate the capabilities of both the nuclear and
conventional forces of the North Korean military and evaluate the threat they pose to US national
security. This will include both the strengths and weaknesses these assets possess and how they
would be used if hostilities were to break out. I will also examine the post-Korean war
skirmishes between the DPRK and the United States and South Korea, as well as under what

3. 2
circumstances many of these confrontations occurred. Finally, I will determine what policy
strategies will be best to address this situation and the steps needed to ensure their success. Past
methods of punishment directed against North Korea will also be looked at, as well as whether or
not they were successful.
Background Information
The Korean War ended with an armistice between the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), with the two nations divided along the 38th
parallel. Since a formal peace treaty was never signed between the two nations, both sides
technically remain in a state of war. As a result, this 160 mile long demilitarized zone has
become the most heavily fortified border in the entire world, with the forces of North Korea
silently facing off against the combined forces of South Korea and the United States.
This last vestige of the Cold War has long been a flashpoint of multiple military
incursions and skirmishes. “For decades, exchanges of fire and reports of territorial incursions
have been an annual--if not monthly--occurrence,” (Tharoor). Included are the capturing of the
US naval vessel the USS Pueblo in 1968, and the hacking to death of two US Army officers with
axes along the DMZ in 1976. In recent years, military clashes between both sides have occurred
with increased frequency around the Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea. Both North and
South Korea were involved in limited naval engagements along the NLN in 1999 and 2002,
resulting in several deaths and casualties on both sides. Tensions reached a maximum in 2010
following two separate attacks on South Korean forces by the North. The first incident occurred
in March when the South Korean Navy corvette, Cheonan, was sunk near Baengnyeong Island in
the Yellow Sea killing 46 personnel. A joint investigation would later reveal that the ship was

4. 3
sunk by a North Korean torpedo. The second clash occurred in November when North Korean
artillery attacked Yeonpyeong Island killing two South Korean soldiers and two civilians. It is
due to the increased frequency of incidents such as these that many experts believe that the NLN
will be the most likely target in future acts of North Korean aggression. They have stated that,
“[i]f history is any guide, the most likely flashpoint is the Yellow Sea…,” (Klug). As such, it
may be of benefit to keep a closer eye on this region in order to identify any potential
confrontations that could escalate into full-scale war.
It is also important to note the specific times such acts of North Korean belligerence have
occurred, as they are not random acts of aggression. Many of North Korea’s missile tests and
border incursions have come after either American and South Korean military exercises or the
implementation of new sanctions on the country. In the past two months North Korea was given
the most severe economic sanctions placed on the country to date and had a front row seat to
April’s month-long joint American-South Korean war-games. In more recent years, “North
Korea has attempted a military provocation within weeks of every South Korean presidential
inauguration…,” (Klug). This fact should be a cause for concern considering that the new South
Korean president was inaugurated this past February. These three factors combined at once lend
credence to the fear that North Korea is planning another military operation, although this time
the South has made clear that it will respond directly if attacked, which could result in all-out
conflict between the DPRK, the ROK and the United States.
North Korean Military Capabilities
When it comes to understanding the true military capabilities of North Korea there are a
lot of things that are unknown to US intelligence. Adding to this uncertainty is the secrecy

5. 4
behind which Kim Jong-un’s regime operates. Despite these shortcomings experts can still piece
together some picture of the capabilities of the North Korean military. What these experts say
goes against how the North Korean military is normally portrayed in Western media and culture.
Former Commander of the US Forces in Korea, General Thomas A Schwartz, testified back in
2001 that “…the North Korean military threat was growing,” (Oh). Other analysts have stated
that, “North Korea has not only the military power but also the political will to wage total war
against the United States,” (Suk). Once North Korea has committed to starting a war with the
United States, they will use all methods and means to achieve victory, and they are an enemy
that should not be taken lightly. This includes the use of both conventional and nuclear forces on
American and South Korean targets and personnel.
Arguably the deadliest conventional forces of the North Korean military are its artillery
assets. The DPRK has placed thousands of heavy artillery guns along the DMZ within range of
Seoul and multiple US military bases and fortifications. These guns, “…can rain 500,000
conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at
Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter
of hours,” (Suk). A first strike from these artillery forces would destroy all frontline forces
before they have a chance to retaliate. North Korea’s armored forces are well designed for
fighting in the rugged Korean terrain. They are also well enough protected to withstand all but
the most powerful American projectiles. The majority of the North’s mechanized units are
positioned in well protected bunkers along the DMZ, and in the opening moments of any conflict
will race across the border in a blitzkrieg attack and overwhelm the American and South Korean
defenders. North Korea has a standing army of well over 1 million soldiers with reserves of up
to 7 million troops. It has also built an elaborate tunnel system beneath the DMZ which would

6. 5
allow ground troops to flank US positions from behind. The DPRK also has the largest Special
Forces branch in the world and has the means to transport large groups of these soldiers to their
targets in planes that can fly below American radar, maintaining the element of surprise in an
attack. “These troops will be tasked to attack US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa
and Guam,” (Suk). However one major disadvantage for North Korean ground forces is the lack
of ammunition and fuel. These supplies are of such scarcity that many troops can only train for
small periods of time. The North’s ground forces are also extremely outdated and although
heavily armored, the United States has the capability of destroying these units.
The North Korean Navy consists of over 700 ships, the bulk of which are made up of
small missile boats, patrol craft and submarines. These missile boats are equipped with long-
range rockets and anti-carrier missiles. They are designed to be launched in large enough
numbers to overwhelm American task force defenses and take out the carrier fleets. The DPRK
submarine force is capable of inserting Special Forces behind enemy lines and silently attacking
South Korean and American ships. As proven in the recent skirmishes and attacks on South
Korean vessels, North Korea has shown that it is not restrained in using its Navy offensively.
North Korea’s Air Force has over 1000 aircraft, however many of these planes are
obsolete and no match for American air power. The DPRK’s most advanced aircraft are used
solely for the defense of the capital city of Pyongyang. Many pilots also lack formal training and
experience due to fuel shortages. The effectiveness of the North Korean Air Force in a conflict
with the US would depend upon the country’s ability to take out American airbases and aircraft
quickly and decisively. This task may lie well within North Korea’s military capabilities as
“…US planes are parked above ground at bases in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam, and make

7. 6
easy targets for missile, rocket and air attacks,” (Suk). Unless it accomplishes this task the North
Korean Air Force would at best be limited to a supporting role.
The hardware that poses the greatest risk to US forces and assets are the North’s ballistic
missiles and nuclear weapons. Over the last several years North Korea has tested several
medium and long range missiles with mixed results. With each test however North Korean
missile technology grows more advanced. Recent reports have stated that, “[t]hese advancesin
ballistic-missile delivery systems, coupledwith developmentsin nuclear technology ... are in line
with NorthKorea'sstated objective of being able to strike the U.S. homeland,” (Alexander). This
fact was confirmed when North Korea’s most recent satellite launch attempt proved successful,
demonstrating a clear improvement in rocket and missile technologies. It is currently believed
that North Korea’s most effective medium and long range missiles are capable of hitting targets
not just in South Korea, Japan, Guam or Okinawa, but also Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands.
The missile causing greatest concern is the Taepodong-2, which could be capable of reaching the
US mainland with continued development. This presents a significant threat to US security as it
places the majority of the United States Pacific operations within range of these missiles. “At
present, the US has no fool-proof defense against North Korean missiles, and in case of war,
North Korean missiles can do serious damages: several hundreds of thousands of US troops will
die, and scores of US bases and carrier battle groups will be destroyed,” (Suk). This is clearly a
disaster scenario as it will take out the bulk of the forces that would be used in retaliatory strikes
and prevents the North from advancing into South Korea. It would also cut off any surviving US
forces in South Korea from receiving reinforcements and supplies. The capabilities of North
Korea’s nuclear program are more difficult to determine. The number of nukes North Korea is
thought to possess has been debated from numbering in the dozens to over 100. At this time
however, North Korea does not possess the technology to make nuclear weapons small enough

8. 7
to fit on the heads of missiles, and is believed that the nation is still several years away from
perfecting this technology. The DPRK’s nuclear stockpile however, could still be used on US
forces and bases on the Korean peninsula with devastating results.
Despite its military shortcomings, the North Korean military still stands as a powerful
and significant threat to US interests. The Commander of US Forces in Korea during 2003,
General Leon LaPorta, has stated that, “[w]ith 1.2 million people under arms, the North Korean
military is a very credible conventional force. They have the largest submarine force, the largest
special operating force, and the largest artillery in the world,” and “[t]he sheer size of their
military makes North Korea a threat, even if their equipment is not as up to date as it could be,”
(Signoriello). With so many American lives and assets at risk, it is imperative that a clear set of
policies are established to deal with this threat through peaceful and if necessary military means.
Model Application and Policy Recommendations
When deciding on what action to take in addressing the threat North Korea poses, there
are two different approaches to consider. These are the liberal approach and the realist approach.
The liberal approach emphasizes diplomacy and international cooperation in solving world
crises, and stresses the importance of compromise in making agreements. Realists on the other
hand, believe that international laws and organizations do not work, and feel that it is an
individual states duty to protect its own national interests through any means, including making
war. This can be with or without international support and cooperation.
The history of diplomatic engagement with North Korea is shaky at best. America first
used a liberal negotiation strategy to deal with the threat posed by North Korea. Up until several
years ago, Six-Party Talks were held between the United States, North Korea, South Korea,

9. 8
Japan, China and Russia. For a while it appeared that these negotiations were effective in
convincing North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. However, these talks eventually broke
down, and the DPRK reversed its policies and restarted its reactors to produce nuclear materials
for weapons. After these negotiations collapsed, the United States changed course and began to
pursue a more realist policy strategy, increasing its military presence in the region and placing
numerous economic sanctions upon North Korea to end its nuclear ambitions. Pyongyang
viewed these actions as a threat and responded with an increasingly belligerent stance towards
America and South Korea. This has led to the current standoff and increased tensions we see
today on the Korean Peninsula. It’s clearly apparent that past methods of punishment and
negotiation have failed to properly address the threat posed by North Korea, and that a new
strategy is needed. This policy needs to combine both realist and liberal aspects in order to be
successful in quelling the North’s bellicose actions and attitude.
First and foremost is the need to restart negotiations on the Korean Peninsula. “The only
way to make the waters off the Korean Peninsula safer and to stop further nuclear proliferation is
to negotiate in earnest--Six-Party Talks must be resumed…,” (Sigal). This will help reestablish
much-needed dialogue between the two sides so that they can begin taking the proper steps
needed to decrease tensions and cooperate. The United States should also consider how North
Korea has responded to past punishments such as economic sanctions. “Cutting off the country’s
trade and cash flow will be a powerful tool that North Korea is likely to seize upon as an excuse
for further belligerence…,” (Fitzpatrick). As examined before the main causes of many of North
Korea’s outbursts come from the implementation of new economic sanctions and reduced aid.
The US should keep this in mind when developing a framework for dealing with the DPRK,
limiting the use of sanctions and the restriction of aid unless they are absolutely necessary. It

10. 9
may also be prudent to create incentives for the North Korean government as many analysts
agree that, “…international strategies to denuclearize North Korea need to focus on measures
that will meet the nation’s internal needs…,” (Ahn). These incentives should focus on food and
medical aid as these supplies are scarce within the impoverished nation.
America must also recognize that, “…these goals point to the need for security
cooperation among the key interested parties, particularly the United States and China,”
(Huntley). If America ever hopes to have success in negotiating North Korea’s denuclearization,
it must improve relations and form closer ties to the major power in the region, China. The PRC
is North Korea’s closest ally and trading partner, and is therefore of great strategic value in
helping the United States contain the North Korean threat. Most experts say “…China has the
best chance of persuading North Korea to return to the goal of denuclearization,” (Fitzpatrick).
In recent years though, China has become ever more reluctant to support its neighbor as it
engages in ever more threatening behavior. The division over how prosperous China has
become and the continued poverty of North Korea has also strained relations between the two
Asian powers. This presents a perfect opportunity for the United States to pursue more formal
relations with China and encourage them to play a significant role in the negotiation process and
support the United States’ policy in dealing with the DPRK. Analysts also agree that, “…the
United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia should engage Beijing in strategic planning about
the future of northeast Asia,” (Fitzpatrick). China’s power and influence in the region makes
them an invaluable asset in addressing North Korea.
Finally, the United States must also continue to maintain a large military presence in the
area to deter any North Korean aggression. This includes an increased focus on positioning
strategic forces near the Northern Line Limit, as this is this is most prone to instances of military

11. 10
confrontation. America should also deploy antimissile systems such as the ship-based Aegis and
land-based Patriot, to protect against and discourage North Korean missile attacks. The United
States should also continue holding joint military exercises with South Korean forces to ensure
that they are prepared to deal with any North Korean incursion that may occur. While these war-
games have had a history of aggravating or provoking North Korea, they are necessary
considering the security threat North Korea poses to the United States and Northeast Asia.
Direct military action against North Korea should be reserved only if the threat from North
Korea becomes grave enough to warrant a preemptive strike, or retaliate against an invasion
from the North.
Conclusion
As a result of the research that I have conducted, I can conclude that a combined liberal
and realist policy strategy would be most effective in containing the North Korean threat. By
engaging in peaceful dialogue while at the same time protecting against North Korean
aggression, the United States can show North Korea that we are willing to negotiate with the
regime but will not be intimidated by threats or violent acts. My research also revealed several
surprising aspects regarding the threat posed by the DPRK. It has shown how North Korea is
more likely to respond aggressively after American displays of military power or after receiving
severe economic sanctions. North Korea’s military has also been exposed to be a much greater
threat than many people believe, and is capable of inflicting severe damage to American bases
and personnel. While my research helped to ascertain the specific military capabilities North
Korea has, future researchers may wish to study how the stability of the North Korean
government would affect regional security and the actions conducted by North Korean forces

12. 11
concerning military confrontations. Other questions include how this specific personality of the
current North Korean leader such as, Kim Jong-un, play in the country’s willingness to negotiate
and how North Korea responds to perceived threats. The greatest flaw that these determined
policies hold is the uncertainty and unpredictability of North Korea itself. While these are the
best strategies in countering the threat, North Korea has shown time and time again that it will
play by its own rules. As the world continues to debate over how to adequately respond to the
DPRK’s increasingly belligerent stance, the security of America remains at risk as North Korea
continues to develop its military capabilities. The specter of war continues to loom over the
Korean Peninsula, with both American and South Korean forces keeping constant watch at the
threat that hides behind the Bamboo Curtain.

13. 12
Bibliography
Ahn, Mun Suk. “What Is the Root Cause of the North Korean Nuclear Program?” Asian Affairs:
An American Review. Vol. 38, Iss. 4, 2011
Alexander, David. "North Korea could reach U.S. with nuclear arms: Pentagon." Yahoo News.
Reuters, 12 Mar 2013. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-could-
eventually-reach-u-nuclear-arms-003551611.html>.
Fitzpatrick, Mark. "Stopping Nuclear North Korea." Survival (00396338) 51.4 (2009): 5-
12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 May 2013.
Huntley, Wade L. “U.S. Policy toward North Korea in Strategic Context: Tempting Goliath's
Fate.” Asian Survey , Vol. 47, No. 3 (May/June 2007), pp. 455-480, Published by: University
of California Press Article DOI: 10.1525/as.2007.47.3.455
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2007.47.3.455
Klug, Foster. "History shows NKorean pattern: wait, then attack." Yahoo News. Associated
Press, 12 Mar 2013. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://news.yahoo.com/history-shows-nkorean-pattern-
wait-then-attack-112646404.html>.
Oh, Kongdan, and Ralph C. Hassig. "The North Korean Military As A Security Threat." East
Asia: An International Quarterly 20.2 (2003): 5-20. International Political Science
Abstracts. Web. 3 May 2013.

14. 13
Sigal, Leon V. "Primer-North Korea, South Korea, And The United States: Reading Between
The Lines Of The Cheonan Attack." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 66.5 (2010): 35-
44. Environment Complete. Web. 3 May 2013.
Signoriello, John. "North vs South Korea: the balance of military power." Examiner.com.
Examiner.com, 27 Jul 2010. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://www.examiner.com/article/north-vs-
south-korea-the-balance-of-military-power>.
Suk, Han Ho. "N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US-A Strategy Of Massive Retaliations
Against US Attacks." Rense.com. Information Clearing House, 24 Apr 2003. Web. 3 May
2013. <http://rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm>.
Tharoor, Ishaan. "Brief History." Time 176.24 (2010): 27. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3
May 2013.