This case study examines North Korea's nuclear weapons program from its origins in the 1950s through its current arsenal of an estimated 40–50 warheads. The paper identifies two cognitive biases shaping decision-making among key stakeholders: North Korea's tendency to "lock on one alternative" — viewing nuclear armament as the only viable deterrent — and the United States' reliance on the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The study explores strategies for overcoming each bias and concludes with policy recommendations centered on security guarantees, incentive-based diplomacy, and Chinese mediation as pathways toward denuclearization.
North Korea's nuclear development and its subsequent possession of nuclear weapons can be traced back to the mid-1950s (Pardo, 2019). A few years later, as Pardo (2019) further indicates, "at the 4th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea held in September 1961, Kim Il Sung urged the government to pursue research and development for the peaceful use of nuclear power" (p. 187). The utilization of nuclear power for peaceful purposes was restated and actively pursued — for example, through the establishment of the Atomic Energy Research Institute — and nuclear research and development efforts scaled up over the next two decades. It was not until the mid-1990s that the development of nuclear weapons became fully embraced as a defense approach under the guidance of Kim Jong-Il (Pardo, 2019). This, as the author further points out, was followed by enhanced nuclear weapons development efforts, including the establishment of the Military Industrial Department (formerly the Workers' Party of Korea Machinery Division).
Over time, the United States and its partners have attempted to negotiate with North Korea to convince the country to halt its missile and nuclear development program. Although there have been indications of progress in denuclearization efforts at various moments, no tangible results have been realized on this front. According to Gray and Lee (2021), some of the strategies pursued toward this end include, but are not limited to, "military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls… diplomatic initiatives to have North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid" (p. 197). The country continues to brandish the nuclear weapons card in what could be interpreted as efforts not only to advance its interests on the regional and international fronts, but also to maintain its leader's grip on power domestically.
It should also be noted that a law recently adopted by the Korean People's Assembly further expands the scenarios under which the country would deploy its nuclear weapons (Congressional Research Service — CRS, 2023). More specifically, the law permits a "first use" course of action if, in the regime's estimate, its own survival is threatened (CRS, 2023). At present, various experts estimate that the isolated country's nuclear arsenal stands at approximately 40–50 warheads (Herskovitz, 2022).
There are a number of cognitive biases that impact — or have in the past had an impact on — the relationship between the various stakeholders in this case, with the key actors being the North Korean regime and the United States. To begin with, North Korea has long claimed that its actions are essentially a defense strategy, framed as a response to joint US–South Korean military exercises. In line with this narrative, North Korea considers its nuclear weapons development program a deterrent against an imminent invasion. The bias in decision-making exhibited here is locking on one alternative. North Korea appears to be convinced that denuclearization would diminish its defense capabilities and expose it to invasion — possibly from South Korea and its allies. Therefore, in North Korea's view, the only way to deter such an invasion is to remain nuclear-armed.
"US applies outdated Cold War MAD doctrine"
"Strategies to address each identified cognitive bias"
"Security guarantees and diplomacy for denuclearization"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.