Is North Korea winning? Along with the country’s expanding nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, North Korea continues to develop and demonstrate expertise in cyber and space warfare that soon may threaten U.S. vital interests and complicate the broader competition between great powers. North Korea’s deepening ties with Russia, including valuable lessons gained from its participation in Russia’s war against Ukraine, will further embolden an already aggressive regime. While each of these developments has been analyzed individually, their cumulative strategic implications have received far less attention. A comprehensive assessment is overdue. The world needs to understand how North Korea’s advancing nuclear, missile, conventional, cyber, and space capabilities, along with its growing strategic partnership with Russia, will influence the regional and global security environment in the coming decades. 

North Korea has proven to be adept at using its cyber capabilities to evade or mitigate the effects of economic sanctions. The theft of cryptocurrency and other assets from financial institutions has evolved into a complex and sustained effort. Pyongyang’s strategy now includes penetrating Western firms that unknowingly hire North Korean IT workers. North Korea has been able to generate billions of dollars from these activities, both through earned income and the theft of intellectual property, and the funds are then used to finance the regime’s missile and nuclear programs: a lose-lose proposition for the U.S. and its allies. 

At present, Western governments are struggling to respond to these challenges even as China and Russia continue to provide North Korea with cyber-related training and support. Coordinated cyber operations between these three powers will be a logical outgrowth. Accurate and timely attribution of cyberattacks is already challenging. In a crisis or conflict, North Korea could serve as a proxy for China and Russia to leverage against the U.S. 

North Korea has recently shown an interest in developing military capabilities in space. This includes surveillance and so-called “counterspace capabilities” to inhibit an adversary’s assured access to space. Russia is increasingly providing North Korea with space-related expertise, including launch infrastructure and launch assistance. With ongoing Russian support, North Korea could achieve significant technological breakthroughs that typically take other countries decades. It remains uncertain what restrictions Moscow is willing to impose on technology transferred to Pyongyang. Considering North Korea’s willingness and history of proliferation, the U.S. might face new threats from other states seeking counterspace capabilities. 

The U.S. is dependent on assured access to space for the functioning of its economy and to conduct military operations. Thanks to its missile program, North Korea could seek to develop a capability to knock out U.S. satellites. Additionally, North Korea has shown interest in using nuclear weapons at high altitudes to generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) to negate U.S. technological dominance. Because North Korea does not rely on space as the U.S. does, these developments would give the regime significant leverage in a future confrontation. As in the cyber domain, China and Russia may leverage North Korea as a deniable proxy actor in space to threaten or attack U.S. interests. 

As the U.S. watches from the sidelines, North Korea continues to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as well. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that the regime has recently added infrastructure at its Yongbyon complex, which will allow it to increase the yearly production of nuclear warheads. North Korea is developing and testing a wide range of missiles, including hypersonics, some of which can hold the U.S. homeland at risk. North Korea is expected to have 50 intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2035. Worse yet, as North Korea’s nuclear-tipped ballistic missile arsenal grows, the existing U.S. missile defense architecture is at risk of being overwhelmed and becoming obsolete. Golden Dome for America could strengthen homeland defense against North Korea by improving missile detection, tracking, and interception. As Pyongyang expands its missile arsenal, a layered and expanding missile defense architecture could diminish North Korea’s nuclear strike credibility and boost U.S. resilience. 

While significant emphasis is placed on analyzing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, it is important to highlight that the regime is believed to possess a significant biological and chemical weapons capability. Biological and chemical weapons provide an adversary with deniability. Continued investment in production and research infrastructure indicates the regime values these asymmetric capabilities despite international tones and laws. In February 2017, Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un, was assassinated in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport after being exposed to the VX nerve agent. North Korea’s ability to produce biological and chemical weapons at an industrial scale, along with its proliferation history and willingness to employ such weapons, presents significant challenges for the U.S. 

For decades, observers have confidently declared that North Korea is on the verge of collapse. Yet, despite years of domestic, economic, and geopolitical sanctions, the regime has not only survived but also thrived in measurable ways. Throughout its history, North Korea has shown a tendency for brinkmanship, coercion, and deception to achieve its goals. Furthermore, Kim Jong Un has integrated the proliferation of military technology, cyber-enabled theft, and sanctions evasion into his broader strategy for sustaining the regime and advancing its military modernization programs. Supported by China and Russia, North Korea has moved from being an isolated rogue state to a dangerous regional power with proxy potential. If Pyongyang effectively combines its growing cyber, space, and WMD capabilities into a coordinated denial and coercion strategy, the U.S. may have limited options during a crisis or conflict. Given the high stakes, Washington must holistically reevaluate its goals, objectives, and means toward Pyongyang before it is too late. The U.S. must ensure that North Korea cannot succeed in coercing the world, threatening the U.S. homeland, or fundamentally altering the strategic balance in Northeast Asia. 

Nathan A. Heard is a doctoral student in the Defense and Strategic Studies Program at Missouri State University, focusing on deterrence and strategic competition. Heard holds a master’s degree in defense and strategic studies and a graduate certificate in countering weapons of mass destruction from Missouri State University, as well as undergraduate degrees in business and information systems management. He authored the December 2025 graduate thesis, “A Novel Deterrence Strategy: Denial Through Space and Cyberspace.” The views expressed in this article are solely his own.

The Coming Crisis with North Korea was originally published on Global Security Review.

Prepared by Peter Huessy, President of Geostrategic Analysis and Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrent Studies

Key Takeaways

• Significant Military Budget Increase in Russia: Russia’s defense spending will rise by 25% to 13.5 trillion rubles (~130 billion euros), continuing its high military expenditure trend.
• U.S. Defense Leadership Changes: Senator Marco Rubio has been confirmed as Secretary of State, with several other key appointments, including Peter Hegseth as Secretary of Defense.
• Nuclear Policy and Strategic Posture Adjustments: Discussions on nuclear deterrence focus on the modernization of U.S. strategic forces, balancing deterrence against Russia and China, and the implications of extended deterrence.
• Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Capabilities: Reports indicate Iranian cargo vessels carrying crucial chemical ingredients for missile propellant, raising concerns about Iran’s growing missile capability.
• Ukraine Conflict and NATO’s Deterrence Mission: NATO leaders stress that a Russian victory would severely weaken the alliance’s credibility.
• U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Extended Deterrence Debates: Several officials emphasize the need for a robust and adaptable nuclear strategy to counter emerging threats from Russia, China, and Iran.

International Developments

Russia’s Defense Budget Expansion

• Russia’s military spending will increase to 13.5 trillion rubles, estimated at 7-8% of GDP, its highest post-Soviet military budget.
• Significant investments in modernized nuclear and conventional forces to maintain strategic parity with the U.S. and NATO.
• Russia’s total defense expenditure, when adjusted for purchasing power, rivals European military spending, highlighting its focus on long-term military capabilities.

Iran’s Missile and Nuclear Advancements

• Intelligence sources indicate Iranian cargo ships transporting missile propellant materials from China, raising alarms among Western security analysts.
• Iran continues uranium enrichment, prompting warnings from the UN about Tehran’s growing nuclear capability.

China & Russia’s Nuclear Expansion

• Reports predict that by 2035, China and Russia will collectively hold over 11,000 nuclear warheads, posing a direct challenge to U.S. nuclear deterrence.
• Concerns grow over China’s accelerated nuclear development and its integration into a broader strategic competition with the U.S. and Russia.

Key Strategic Issues on the Horizon

Escalation Risks in Space Warfare

• A RAND Corporation study warns that Russia may escalate conflicts in space early due to its heightened fears of a U.S. first strike.
• The study underscores Moscow’s increasing risk tolerance and potential responses to perceived U.S. threats in space.

Ukraine’s Role in NATO’s Deterrence Strategy

• NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warns that a Russian victory would weaken NATO’s credibility, requiring significant investments in deterrence.
• U.S. extended deterrence remains under scrutiny, with debates over whether the Biden administration’s fear of escalation weakened deterrence against Russia.

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Force Modernization

• The U.S. Air Force confirms that the Sentinel ICBM and B-21 Raider will remain the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence until at least 2050.
• Discussions continue over potential mobile ICBM systems, expanded long-range bombers, and additional dual-use aircraft to ensure nuclear survivability.

‘Iron Dome for America’ Missile Defense System

• President Trump’s proposal for a nationwide missile defense system—similar to Israel’s Iron Dome—is gaining momentum.
• Critics call it overly ambitious, but proponents argue that it is essential to counter growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Key Events

Upcoming NIDS Seminar (January 31, 2025)

• Speakers: Shoshana Byren (Jewish Policy Center) & Ilan Berman (American Foreign Policy Council).
• Topic: Iranian security threats to the U.S. and its allies, with a focus on Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

NIDS conference at Truman Library (August 6, 2025)

• A 4-star USAF officer will serve as the featured speaker.
• Expected discussions on extended deterrence, strategic stability, and nuclear policy.

Conclusion

The ICBM Ear report for the week of January 23, 2025, highlights key developments in U.S. nuclear policy, global security challenges, and strategic deterrence issues. With Russia’s increasing military budget, Iran’s missile advancements, and China’s nuclear expansion, the U.S. faces a growing multipolar nuclear environment. Discussions on extended deterrence, arms control, and new strategic capabilities will shape U.S. defense posture in the coming years. The upcoming TRIAD Symposium and NIDS events will provide further insights into these critical security matters.

ICBM EAR for 23 Jan 25 was originally published on Global Security Review.

Based on the latest EAR Report, these are the critical points on global security, upcoming events, and the ongoing discourse on nuclear deterrence, modernization, and geopolitical strategy for 2025.

Quotes of the Week

• Xi Jinping (China): “No one can stop the historical trend” of China’s “reunification” with Taiwan.”
• U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg (South Korea): Reaffirmed the U.S.-South Korean alliance amidst geopolitical tensions.
• DPRK Kim Jong Un: Committed to implementing the “toughest” anti-American policy while criticizing the U.S.-South Korea-Japan security partnership.
• Antony Blinken (U.S. Secretary of State): Highlighted Russia’s intentions to share advanced space technology with North Korea.
• NATO Official: Warned of unconventional Russian attacks causing substantial casualties.

Upcoming 2025 Seminar Events

1. January 10, 2025, 10:00 AM: Robert Soofer & Mark Massa on “The Case for Homeland Missile Defense.”
2. January 31, 2025, 10:00 AM: Shoshana Bryen & Ilan Berman on “Middle East Update and the Iranian Nuclear Threat.”
3. February 14, 2025, 10:00 AM: Stephen Blank & Mark Schneider on “Russian Intentions with Its Growing Nuclear Forces.”
4. February 28, 2025, 10:00 AM: Hon. Madelyn Creedon & Hon. Frank Miller on “Assessment and Update of the Posture Commission.”
5. March 14, 2025, 10:00 AM: Gordon Chang & Rick Fisher on “The Chinese Nuclear Threat & Implications for US Security.”

Nuclear Derangement Syndrome

• Criticism of nuclear deterrence is gaining momentum, focusing on framing nuclear weapons as both unnecessary and dangerous.
• The Union of Concerned Scientists highlights essays opposing nuclear modernization, which are countered with arguments emphasizing deterrence as essential for stability.
• The critique overlooks the strategic necessity of nuclear weapons in preventing large-scale conflicts and ensuring global security.

The Biden-Trump Arms Race

• Criticism: The Biden and Trump administrations’ claims of an arms race are exaggerated. They focus on necessary modernization within New START limits.
• Reality: Modernization efforts (Columbia submarines, Sentinel ICBMs, B21 bombers) align with treaty commitments, aiming for readiness by 2042.
• Key Concern: Rising nuclear capabilities of Russia and China surpass New START limits, demanding U.S. responses to maintain strategic balance.
• Counterarguments: Opponents argue modernization fuels an arms race, while proponents emphasize deterrence and technological edge against adversaries.

Download the full report.

ICBM EAR Report Jan, 3 2025 was originally published on Global Security Review.