North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program is motivated principally by the desire to develop a deterrent against an attack by external forces, particularly the United States or South Korea. North Korea’s threats have been directed primarily toward the United States and its allies. The Kim regime regards the U.S. military presence in South Korea (which hosts nearly 28,000 U.S. troops as of September 2023) as an obstacle to a North Korea–led unification of the peninsula. It also sees the United States as the most dangerous military threat it faces.
The most important priority for the UN Security Council on this matter is eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The Security Council is a core part of global efforts to stop the spread, or proliferation, of nuclear weapons. Among other things, it is charged with responding to violations of the NPT. Most frequently, the Security Council acts by imposing sanctions on any country or group that violates the treaty. Since North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, the Security Council has been at the center of international efforts to halt the country’s nuclear development. After Pyongyang’s first nuclear test in 2006, the Security Council unanimously approved a series of sanctions that have grown increasingly severe in response to tests.
North Korea already has the capability to hit South Korea and Japan with nuclear missiles. Advancements in its nuclear technology and missile capabilities could pose a serious security threat not just to the United States but also to its allies. Furthermore, the capabilities could pose a threat to the Asia-Pacific region more broadly. A nuclear attack by North Korea on one of its rivals could destroy cities and kill millions of people, potentially triggering a devastating conflict in the region.
North Korea’s nuclear progress and the failure of international responses could encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Countries such as Japan and South Korea could face domestic political pressure to respond to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter North Korea. Such pressure would be a defeat for global nonproliferation efforts. Likewise, it would make any conflict in Northeast Asia far more destructive.
Any response to North Korea’s nuclear development will need the approval of all five of the Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent members (P5). Although the Security Council has been unanimous in its past condemnations of North Korea’s nuclear endeavors, the diverging interests of the P5, especially of China, Russia, and the United States, could get in the way of any new action. China has offered only a mixed record of supporting and upholding sanctions against North Korea. It values North Korea as a buffer between itself and the thriving capitalist democracy of South Korea. Russia has increasingly seen North Korea as a strategic partner, especially since the war in Ukraine began. Both countries have reasons to oppose harsh penalties against North Korea.
With those concerns in mind, the Security Council has a few options it could pursue in response to the North Korean nuclear threat.
Condemn testing and call for negotiations to resume.
The UN Security Council could adopt a resolution condemning North Korea’s latest missile test. This resolution could also call on it not to test or use missiles or nuclear weapons in the future. This resolution could also outline consequences if North Korea does not comply. Potential consequences include additional sanctions. The Security Council could further call for North Korea to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. In exchange, such negotiations could offer sanctions relief, economic aid, or a formal peace treaty ending the Korean War. Such negotiations could take place between the United States and North Korea alone, under the previous framework of the Six Party Talks, or in a new format. If an agreement is achieved, the Security Council could also call on North Korea to admit outside inspectors to monitor the agreement’s progress.
This is the least ambitious option, but it is the most likely to pass. If successful, this option could reduce the threat of North Korean nuclear missiles and avoid rising tensions or even war. However, this option cannot guarantee any results. North Korea has ignored similar resolutions. Past negotiations have failed or led to broken promises from North Korea. The Security Council risks giving North Korea aid or sanctions relief and receiving nothing in return. At best, failed negotiations would result in no change to the situation. At worst, they could lead to the Kim regime increasing its nuclear development, damage the United Nations’ reputation, and bring the world closer to nuclear conflict.
The Security Council could choose to pursue negotiations first; should they prove unsuccessful, it could then resort to one of two other options.
Adopt new sanctions.
The UN Security Council could adopt a new round of sanctions against North Korea. This could further limit the country’s access to fuel, raw materials, and luxury goods. The Security Council could also call for states to crack down on North Korea’s illegal activities abroad to restrict its access to funds and nuclear materials.
Expanding sanctions would be driven by the assumption that the best path forward is to isolate North Korea until its government collapses or changes. The Security Council has approved sanctions in response to past nuclear tests, but so far these have not stopped North Korea’s nuclear development. Stronger sanctions could finally produce change. However, there is no guarantee that sanctions will have the desired effect. Sanctions have already put North Korea’s economy in a dire situation. Additional pressure on the economy could lead to further worsening conditions for North Koreans rather than any policy change on nuclear weapons. Moreover, sanctions take time to have an effect. During this time, North Korea’s nuclear program would continue to pose a threat.
Authorize preventive military strikes.
The UN Security Council could adopt a resolution calling on North Korea to denuclearize and authorize member states to enforce that resolution by force. This would lead the United States and possibly its other allies to launch a preventive military strike. This strike would be aimed at destroying as many missile and nuclear–related sites and as much equipment as possible. Even if these strikes could not completely eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program, they could set it back for the foreseeable future. Given the current phase of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, this option would likely require a large-scale military operation to succeed.
This option offers a crucial benefit. It could reduce the threat of North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapons for years to come. Preventive strikes would also demonstrate a strong international commitment to nonproliferation. They could further send an effective warning to North Korea and others against developing nuclear weapons in the future.
However, China borders North Korea and has signed a security treaty with North Korea. It is unlikely to allow any military action by the United States or its allies. Moreover, a military intervention comes with significant risks. A preventive strike cannot guarantee the destruction of all North Korean nuclear capabilities. A military strike also risks a North Korean retaliation that could escalate and have devastating results. South Korea’s densely populated capital, Seoul, is particularly vulnerable to North Korea’s military because of how close it is to the border with the North. Even limited retaliation by North Korea could lead to many deaths and a high level of destruction in Seoul. Moreover, if North Korea fears losing its nuclear weapons, it could also decide to use them first.
