• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Print Versions
  • About
  • Masthead
    • 2022-2023
    • 2016-2017

The Bowdoin Review

Defensive Luddism: North Korean Nukes and Cyber-Resiliency

Written by: Nathaniel J. Low
Published on: March 14, 2017

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, but one—due to its perceived irrationality—elicits fear in even the most powerful military in the world, and for good reason. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, North Korea has doggedly pursued a nuclear weapons program since 2003 and has conducted at least twenty-four missile or nuclear tests in 2016 alone. While North Korea has not yet developed an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can reach the United States, many intelligence analysts estimate that ability will arrive within the next five to ten years. Miniaturizing a nuclear warhead, which allows a bomb to be fired on long-range missiles, is the next key step for the North Korean regime; their current arsenal—including the Nodong and Musudan missiles—already enables them to hit targets such as Japan, Australia, and strategic U.S. naval bases in Guam.

Debates among U.S. policymakers have persisted on how to best combat the threat, but there seems to be no simple solution. Surgical strikes on missile silos are not a guaranteed success. For example, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un abides by nuclear deterrence theory’s notion of second strike capability. Second strike capability is when a state establishes a nuclear triad of submarine, plane, and ground launched missiles and ensures it can retaliate if attacked. In other words, no matter how well-planned the U.S. strikes are, North Korea would be able to hit a surrounding country with a bomb if provoked.

Additionally, sanctions have proved ineffective because China is reluctant to enact economic measures that would destabilize the North Korean regime. Initiating negotiations would also likely be a futile effort, since talks to reach a multilateral nuclear agreement have broken down several times. Therefore, President Obama was left with one method of modern warfare to confront North Korea’s nuclear weapons program that has now continued into the Trump Administration: cyberattacks.

The United States and Israel saw infamous success in their cyberattack against the Iranian nuclear program, “Stuxnet,” but infiltrating North Korea has proven much more difficult. North Korea has arguably the most extreme censorship policies in the world, particularly for the internet, and their lack of contemporary technology makes cyberattacks nearly impossible. (Ironically, sanctions are reason to blame for the technology lag.) Their national network, the Kwangmyong, is an intranet of solely state-approved information and access is still not widely proliferated within the country. With respect to cyber defense, having an outdated, dispersed, and highly prioritized internet infrastructure is remarkably beneficial.

The U.S.’s interest in proactively developing nuclear weapon comes from the expense of maintaining a significant nuclear weapons arsenal, which has cost the U.S. $300 billion since the Eisenhower administration. To that end, many officials now advocate a “left of launch” policy, in which the aim is to deter nuclear attacks before or on the launching pad. Yet, just as Ronald Reagan was hindered in establishing his Strategic Defense Initiative, more commonly known as “Star Wars,” due to technological limitations, the U.S. has much work to do before reliable cyber methods can be implemented at the core of its nuclear defense policy.

Categories: Asia-PacificTags: North Korea

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Why South Africa Remains Unequal Thirty Years After Apartheid May 7, 2024
  • Skeptical of September February 8, 2024
  • Waterwheel February 7, 2024
  • Nineteen February 7, 2024
  • D.C.’s Most Expensive Retirement Home: Congress    February 7, 2024
  • Instagram

Archives

  • May 2024
  • February 2024
  • October 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • February 2012

Copyright © 2025 · The Bowdoin Review - A voice on campus for politics, society, and culture.