Strategic Deterrence or Attack? Expert Evaluates Major Choice For North Korea’s Nuclear Powered Submarine Program

North Korean shipbuilders have been <a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/nkorea-nuclear-powered-submarine-construction" target="_blank">reported</a> by sources in the South Korean military and National Assembly to have begun construction of the country’s first nuclear powered submarine, raising a significant possibility that the Korean People’s Army Navy will field a revolutionary and entirely new kind of warship before the end of the decade. The recent reports from South Korean sources notably followed a&nbsp; <a href="https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1706479567-894008571/respected-comrade-kim-jong-un-guides-test-fire-of-submarine-launched-strategic-cruise-missile/" >report</a> in January from North Korean state media that construction of a nuclear powered submarine was underway and had been inspected by political leaders, who were provided with a detailed understanding of its construction. Indeed, as early as January 2021 the chairman of the ruling Korean Workers’ Party Kim Jong Un <a href="https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1610155111-665078257/on-report-made-by-supreme-leader-kim-jong-un-at-8th-congress-of-wpk" >announced</a>&nbsp;that “the design of a new nuclear-powered submarine was researched and was in the stage of final examination,” with design work on its weapons and sensors already complete. Nuclear powered submarines are currently fielded by just six countries, and have the potential to facilitate regular extended open ocean naval operations for North Korea’s navy, with their ability to remain at sea for months at a time providing a wholly different capability to that of diesel electric powered ships.&nbsp;<img src="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/m/articles/2024/10/18/article_671270926524c4_81038604.jpg" title="North Korean Hwasong-16B Ballistic Missile with Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Unveiled in March 2024">Assessing the implications of North Korea’s nuclear powered submarine program, expert on East Asian security and author of the <a href="https://www.claritypress.com/product/surviving-the-unipolar-era-north-koreas-35-year-standoff-with-the-united-states/">recently launched book</a> Surviving the Unipolar Era: North Korea’s 35 Year Standoff with the United States, A. B. Abrams, highlighted how the program could be a game changer for the country’s longstanding conflict with Washington. Abrams observes that major demonstrated recent advances by North Korea in areas such as <a href="https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/north-koreas-new-hwasong-16b-hypersonic-glider-heralds-a-new-missile-era/">hypersonic glide vehicle&nbsp;</a>and <a href="https://www.38north.org/2024/07/north-korea-reveals-a-multiple-warhead-payload-in-probable-failed-test/">multiple independent reentry vehicle</a>&nbsp;technologies, as well as nuclear warhead miniaturisation, could make a nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine highly potent as a second stage deterrent. The expert nevertheless notes that despite prevailing assumptions among analysts that North Korea’s nuclear submarines will be designed for strategic deterrent, a not insignificant possibility remains that some or all of the ships will be attack submarines which he argues “could potentially be a far more unfavourable development for the United States and its allies for a number of reasons.”<img src="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/m/articles/2024/10/18/article_671270d732e412_30349002.jpeg" title="Submarine Launch of North Korean Pukkuksong-3 Ballistic Missile in 2020">Abrams notes that while ballistic missile submarines “have only limited utility beyond deterring, and if necessary waging, a full scale nuclear war,” attacks submarines would provide a more fundamentally new capability to project naval power across oceans. Examples include “deployment of both nuclear and conventionally armed cruise missiles, <a href="https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/02/15/navys-new-sub-carries-seals-instead-of-nukes-2/">insertion of special forces</a>, and anti shipping duties using torpedoes and anti ship cruise missiles.” The greater versatility of such ships allows them to play a central role in escalation management by North Korea – providing options for a range of attacks well below the threshold of full scale nuclear war up to and including tactical nuclear strikes and hit-and-run cruise missile attacks on U.S. Navy ships in the Pacific. Stressing the greater utility of attack submarines, Abrams observes that should the United States “launch a limited strike on a North Korean industrial target or military base,&nbsp;a ballistic missile submarine’s utility would be limited to reinforcing the top tier of Pyongyang’s escalatory ladder,” where an attack submarine by contrast would facilitate “proportional limited&nbsp;retaliatory strikes… against faraway targets on American soil including Guam, Wake Island, and the United States mainland.” While North Korea can launch large scale nuclear attacks on any American strategic targets, its current capacity for limited tactical strikes on targets beyond East Asia is limited.&nbsp;<img src="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/m/articles/2024/10/18/article_6712711f972875_42722995.JPG" title="North Korean Fire Strela-3-31 Cruise Missile Launch in January 2024">Abrams concludes that a nuclear powered attack submarine would represent “a major step towards rectifying the discrepancy in the reaches of the two countries’ armed forces – one which North Korea balanced at the strategic level in 2017 with the fielding of its first ICBMs, but could now begin to balance at the tactical level. The ability to launch limited cruise missile attacks against military bases and industrial targets on United States territory would be entirely new, and could help to deter the United States from considering limited strikes on the country in future.” He notes that North Korea’s defence sector has in recent years made “technological leaps to field military equipment that appears fully on par with cutting edge foreign competitors, bridging technological gaps that were previously very wide,” citing examples such as the <a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/details-nkorea-next-generation-tank" target="_blank">Chonma 2 tank </a>and <a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/north-korea-test-firing-s400-similar-air-defence" target="_blank">Pyongae-6 air defence system</a> as precedents for a similar major leap forward in the capabilities of the submarine industry. The expert was among several to note that technology transfers from Russia, which has become highly reliant on <a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/two-dozen-nkorean-missiles-ukrainian" target="_blank">North Korean support</a> for its ongoing war effort in Ukraine, could be a central factor accelerating the East Asian state’s efforts to develop a cutting edge nuclear submarine capability.&nbsp;<img src="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/m/articles/2024/10/19/article_6713020d4292a4_23484921.png" title="F-35 Production Line at Fort Worth, Texas – a potential target for limited cruise missile strikes">The ability to strike American targets far beyond the Korean Peninsula, and particularly on the U.S. mainland itself, has a special significance for North Korea due to its historical memory in its war with the United States, which has been ongoing for over 74 years. Under the Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Donald Trump administrations Washington came close to launching major nuclear strikes on the East Asian country, with unprovoked attacks strongly considered as recently as 2017&nbsp;<a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/mattis-you-re-going-to-incinerate-a-couple-million-people-america-s-insane-plan-to-drop-80-nuclear-bombs-on-north-korea" >expected to kill millions</a>&nbsp;of North Koreans. Multiple administrations, including those of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, have come close to launching large scale assaults on North Korea, before being deterred effectively by the country’s military capabilities. The historical memory of the Korean War, during which American bombers&nbsp;<a href="https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/legacy-of-terror-dozens-of-unexploded-american-bombs-found-at-construction-site-of-pyongyang-general-hospital" target="_blank" >throughly ravaged</a>&nbsp;the country and were responsible for the bulk of the 20-30 percent of the population killed, and during which North Korea could not retaliate against the U.S. mainland, is thought to have remained a major influence on its strategic thought today.&nbsp;