North Korea conducted a series of missile launches in July, sparking protests from the Japanese and South Korean militaries. These launches included two short-range ballistic missiles on July 24^th, cruise missiles on July 22^nd, two more short-range ballistic missiles on July 19^th, and an intercontinental ballistic missile (I.C.B.M.) on July 12^th. These launches were mainly in retaliation to the United States’ deployment of a nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine, U.S.S. Kentucky, to South Korea, marking the first time a similar had been deployed since 1981. The missile launches were deemed to be a clear violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed strong condemnation, calling the launches “grave provocative acts” endangering the stability of the region, as well as the international arena. Similarly, Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada stated that Japan intends to protest the launches through diplomatic means.

On the other hand, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, while acknowledging the strategic significance the launches had for Indo-Pacific geopolitics, nonetheless concluded that they do not pose an immediate threat to the United States.

To critique, the Indo-Pacific Command’s response undercuts the significance of North Korea’s actions when taken in broader context. Focusing on the lack of immediate threat to the U.S. and failing to acknowledge the impact the U.S.S. Kentucky’s deployment had on the sensitive balance within the Korean Peninsula removes the strategic military calculation behind North Korea’s move from the current conversation. Instead, the Indo-Pacific Command characterizes North Korea’s launches as a reactive rebuttal to the United States’ expansion of influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

The new establishment of the Nuclear Consultative Group, for example, tangibly represents the strengthening of U.S.-South Korean relations, in which the U.S. promises to be “using the full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons.” North Korean Defense Minister Kang Sun-nam made clear that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is against this development. Kang also claimed that the deployment of U.S.S. Kentucky is “under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons specified in the D.P.R.K. law on the nuclear force policy.” In other words, although South Korea describes the Kentucky as “defensive measures,” North Korea has responded to the deployment by escalating the possibility of nuclear threat. And, while hardly the main cause of the tension, a professor of international studies in Seoul notes that a recent incident involving an American soldier crossing the Korean border has additionally inflamed the already-strained relations.

In response to these perceived threats, North Korea has showcased its own geopolitical prowess. During a visit made by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chinese delegates led by Li Hongzhong for the 70^th anniversary celebrations of the Korean War armistice, Kim Jong Un displayed the country’s weapons arsenal, including the country’s first solid-propellant missile (a more efficient method of propulsion than others in the D.P.R.K.’s weaponry) and offensive drones modeled after those used by the U.S. Air Force.

While the D.P.R.K.’s military capacity is alarming, the international community is equally frightened of the state’s increasingly close alliances with China and Russia. North Korea’s state-run Korean Central News Agency reports that Kim Jong Un had a “friendly talk” with Defense Minister Shoigu in which the two discussed “matters of mutual concerns” about national security. Shoigu praised North Korea’s Korean People’s Army as the world’s “the most powerful” military and promised co-operation to mutually re-inforce each other. On the topic of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Defense Minister Kang also emphasized that North Korea supports “the just struggle of the Russian army and people to defend the sovereignty and security of the country.”

As Stanton senior fellow Ankit Panda in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace pointed out, the aforementioned exchanges “[underscore] the importance Pyongyang attaches to its relationships with both countries.” These nuclear-armed countries could represent a powerful potential threat to the existing global order.