North Korea Nuclear Threat and U.S. National Security Strategy
This paper examines the landscape of U.S. national security threats and argues that the potential for nuclear war — particularly from North Korea — represents the most pressing and immediate danger. Drawing on the 2015 National Security Strategy and the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment, the paper surveys threats ranging from terrorism and cybercrime to climate change and nuclear proliferation. It contends that while most threats are manageable over time, North Korea's demonstrated willingness to develop, test, and traffic nuclear weapons — combined with erratic leadership both in Pyongyang and Washington — elevates the nuclear threat above all others. The paper also situates this danger within a broader context of global political instability, including shifts in Turkey, Russia's assertive foreign policy, and uncertainty over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
- Introduction: The Scope of U.S. National Security Threats: Overview of multiple national security threats facing the U.S.
- North Korea's Nuclear Provocations: North Korea's missile tests and nuclear trafficking as key threats
- Trump's Foreign Policy and the Risks of Erratic Leadership: Trump's impulsive military actions and their national security implications
- Global Political Instability and Nuclear Proliferation: European and Middle Eastern instability compounding nuclear risks
- Conclusion: Prioritizing Diplomacy to Contain the Nuclear Threat: Call for multilateral diplomacy to manage North Korea crisis
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes multiple national security threats and then methodically narrows focus to a single, well-argued priority — nuclear war — giving the argument clear direction and coherence.
- It grounds its claims in authoritative primary sources, including the Director of National Intelligence's official Worldwide Threat Assessment and the National Security Strategy, lending credibility to its analysis.
- The paper connects domestic leadership behavior (Trump's foreign policy impulsiveness) to international risk, demonstrating awareness of how internal political dynamics shape external security outcomes.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs comparative threat analysis — surveying a broad field of national security concerns before using reasoned prioritization to identify which poses the gravest immediate risk. This technique is strengthened by explicitly acknowledging the long-term importance of other threats (terrorism, cybercrime, climate change) while arguing they are more manageable, making the final claim more persuasive through contrast rather than dismissal.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by surveying the range of threats identified in Obama's 2015 National Security Strategy, then pivots to North Korea's missile activity as a concrete and urgent case. The middle sections assess Trump's foreign policy style as an aggravating factor and broaden the lens to include European and Middle Eastern instability. The conclusion calls for multilateral diplomacy — particularly engagement with China, South Korea, and Japan — as the necessary response.
Introduction: The Scope of U.S. National Security Threats
In 2015, President Obama outlined a set of core national security objectives that included references to ISIL, climate change, and social justice, all addressed in the National Security Strategy. The direction any new administration takes is likely to shift some of those objectives and strategies while still confronting the same crucial issues. It is a futile exercise to narrow the range of national security threats to a single issue, as all of them present clear and present dangers. Some threats — such as terrorism and cybercrime — are bound to remain ongoing and are nearly impossible to eliminate entirely. Others, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and ISIL, have the potential to be contained through the cooperation of global allies. However, one issue continues to simmer beneath the surface of all other threats and has only recently attracted renewed media attention: the potential for nuclear war.
North Korea's Nuclear Provocations
A year before the recent staging of war drills and paramilitary exercises held to honor the 105th anniversary of North Korea's founding, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, stated on the record that North Korea "will continue to pose a serious threat to US interests" — not only because of its ability to deploy its own weapons in the East Asian corridor, but also because the rogue state traffics weapons of mass destruction to Iran, Syria, and other countries (Clapper, pp. 6–7). North Korea subsequently launched six Pukkuksong submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) in a display that served as both a military demonstration and a direct warning to the United States (McCurry).
In response to this brazen show of force, President Trump employed inflammatory rhetoric that was widely condemned by the international community — and especially by China and other nations that would be in the direct line of fire should North Korea act on its threat that "thermonuclear war could break out at any moment" (McCurry). Trump's military engagements during this period included a "mother of all bombs" strike on presumed ISIL forces in Afghanistan and a high-profile attack on a Syrian air force base, both of which demonstrated his willingness to use force in the absence of prior diplomatic discourse.
Trump's Foreign Policy and the Risks of Erratic Leadership
Trump's erratic foreign policy and behavior as Commander in Chief could itself be framed as a significant threat to American national security, given the absence of a cohesive national security strategy comparable to that of his predecessor. As a counterpart to North Korea's Kim Jong-un, Trump displayed a similar tendency toward shocking demonstrations of power and political aggrandizement. Nevertheless, Vice President Pence sought to reassure allies, stating that "President Trump is determined to work closely with Japan, with South Korea, with all our allies in the region, and with China" in preventing and ameliorating the threat of nuclear war (McCurry).
Given the horrific implications of even a limited nuclear strike, no other national security threat appears as pressing or immediate. While cybercrime, climate change, and terrorism will remain on the national security agenda for years to come, each of those issues seems comparatively more manageable than the threat of nuclear war — particularly in light of the number of nations that possess nuclear capabilities and the ineffective leadership demonstrated by some of those nations' leaders.
Conclusion: Prioritizing Diplomacy to Contain the Nuclear Threat
Whereas cybercrime, climate change, and even terrorism will remain on the national security agenda for years to come, each of those issues seems relatively more manageable compared with the threat of nuclear war — owing to the sheer number of nations with nuclear capabilities and the quality of leadership those nations have exhibited. It is imperative that the United States act in accordance with the principles of bilateral communication and work closely with China, South Korea, and Japan to contain the North Korean threat without instigating further proliferation.
References
Clapper, James R. (2016). Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Retrieved from https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/wwt2016.pdf
McCurry, Justin (2017). "North Korea warns 'thermonuclear war could break out at any moment.'" The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/17/north-korea-war-break-out-any-moment-donald-trump-v
President of the United States (2015). National Security Strategy. Retrieved from http://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.