North Korean missiles: strategic implications and policy responses

Abstract

Analysts remain sharply divided on the underlying motivations behind North Korea's ballistic missile program, more than two years after Pyongyang startled the world by test firing its Taepodong-1 missile in August 1998. In the aftermath of the historic South-North summit meeting in June and US Secretary of State Madeline Albright's path-breaking trip to Pyongyang in October, proponents of the engagement school argue that with a mixture of patience and inducements, North Korea will ultimately negotiate away its missiles. They point to the 1994 Agreed Framework as a key reminder that North Korea uses its weapons of mass destruction capability as a bargaining chip. Conversely, countervailing arguments point out that North Korea's ballistic missile program serves multiple purposes such as shifting the correlation of forces to its favor, supporting the military's modernization goals, and as the primary symbol of military prowess and that, as a result, a negotiated settlement is unlikely. This paper assesses North Korea's potential reasons for pursuing a robust ballistic missile program over the past two decades and the broader strategic consequences of North Korea's missile arsenal, particularly if it succeeds in developing intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities. In addition, it also analyzes South Korea's political and military responses to North Korea's accelerated ballistic missile program including South Korea's own ballistic missile modernization goals. The paper also reviews the problems associated with trilateral policy coordination between South Korea, the United States, and Japan. Finally, policy options are analyzed but none appear to be able to satisfy the seemingly contradictory objectives of the key players in the ongoing North Korean missile saga.