[infotainment]

This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it.

That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.

[fakedang]

The point of nukes for NK is not about being able to use them to attack its neighbours. The point of nukes for NK is to ensure that they don't get invaded themselves. That's why NK makes a big deal about nukes that can reach the US - currently the only viable threat the NK regime has had is the US.

Which is also the reason why Pakistan pursued a nuclear programme (vs India). Which is why India pursued a nuclear programme (vs China). Which is why China pursued a nuclear programme (vs the USSR). People apparently discount the important of nukes and MAD doctrine in helping preserve the peace in today's world.

[jfengel]

The US doesn't want to invade North Korea. North Korea is a Chinese ally. China doesn't want the US on its border. North Korea doesn't need its own nukes to keep the US out.

At least, that was true. Here in 2026, nobody can say what the US will do with its military. Its goals are opaque and its actions often self-defeating.

Even so, if the US invades North Korea, NK's nukes won't be the most important thing. It would instantly become a US/China conflict with much, much, much larger stakes.

[fakedang]

But the fact of the matter is, in the event the US does invade North Korea, Rocketman has the option to launch nukes at the US - something that the US knows, hence it won't do anything about. Nukes also give NK more optionality, instead of being a territorial buffer state for the Chinese.

[mytailorisrich]

NK is also protected by China. The last time the US tried to militarily topple NK it didn't end well.

[bdangubic]

> The last time the US tried to militarily

The last many times the US tried to militarily do anything at all it did not end well...