North Korean Nuclear Threat (NSC) — Student

Fictional, set in the present day. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) has for decades pursued its nuclear ambitions to the dismay of both Western countries and its neighbors in East Asia. It recently announced the successful launch of a satellite from a three-stage rocket, and U.S. and allied intelligence services conclude that North Korea now possesses the reentry technology for an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the North American west coast. The director of national intelligence informs the president that the missile launch, combined with North Korea’s ongoing nuclear tests and its mastery of warhead miniaturization technology, means the country is capable of following through on past threats to fire a nuclear-armed missile against the United States. The president has called an NSC meeting to discuss how to respond to North Korea’s enhanced capabilities.

The United States plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining international order. This is particularly true in an increasingly globalized world. The range of foreign policy issues that require its attention is vast. The United States must consider foreign policy issues from conflicts in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Syria to tensions with Iran and North Korea; from long-standing alliances to complex, evolving relationships with Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa. Issues on the agenda range from the stability of global finance to the promotion of economic opportunity in low-income countries; and from climate to health to nuclear proliferation to terrorism. The United States has a vested interest in myriad world affairs. Further, issues such as immigration, trade, cybersecurity, climate change, and global health underscore the fading distinction between domestic and international matters.

Regardless of the scale of the problem, a successful foreign policy–making process starts by defining interests and goals. Policymakers and their advisors then formulate policy options to meet those goals and consider each option’s strengths and weaknesses. This process is challenging. In the best of times information can be unreliable or incomplete or an adversary’s intentions can be unclear. Often a decision’s consequences can be unknowable. Leaders frequently have to choose from a list on which every option is imperfect. Adding to this uncertainty is the complexity of the U.S. government’s foreign policy machinery. Numerous agencies—each with its own interests and biases—seek to influence how policy is decided and carried out. It takes considerable effort to run a process capable of producing sound policy decisions.

The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role in this effort. Its mission is to help the president effectively use a variety of instruments—military, diplomatic, or otherwise—to forge policies that advance U.S. national security goals.

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947. This act defined the NSC as an interagency body intended to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” The period after World War II was an age of expanded American interests and responsibilities. The NSC was expected to provide a place where the heads of federal departments and agencies could cooperate to develop recommendations for policies that would advance U.S. aims. The NSC and its staff were also meant to manage the policymaking process. This ensured that the president would receive a full range of advice and opinion from the departments and agencies involved in national security.

The NSC has evolved significantly over the years. The NSC has adapted to the preferences of successive presidents and the challenges they faced. Variables such as the attendees, the frequency of meetings, the manner in which information is passed to the president, the importance of consensus, and the relative dominance of the NSC over other government institutions have changed over the decades.

The NSC has evolved to comprise various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the interagency process. This process is one through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.

I. National Security Advisor

The national security advisor (formally assistant to the president for national security affairs) is at the heart of the NSC structure. The national security advisor’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Because they have direct access to the president and do not represent a cabinet department, national security advisors are in a unique position. From this neutral perch they drive foreign policy decisions, manage the actors involved, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process.

II. National Security Council Staff

The NSC staff consists of individuals from a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and the administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on regions or issues. The size and organization of the staff vary with each administration.

The NSC staff provides expertise for the variety of national security policy matters under consideration. It manages numerous responsibilities, including preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers and handling inquiries from Congress on foreign policy issues. Staff members analyze both immediate and long-standing issues and help prioritize  the agenda.

III. Committee Structure

Committees are at the core of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC. They fall into four categories:

This committee structure tackles both immediate crises such as an outbreak of conflict and enduring issues such as climate change. IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on it and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. The Deputies Committee manages the interagency process up and down. It decides what IPCs to establish. and gives them specific assignments. It also considers information submitted by the IPCs before relaying it to the Principals Committee or the full NSC.

The Principals Committee is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. It consists of the heads of the NSC’s component agencies. The Principals Committee is essentially all the members of the NSC except the president and vice president. Formal NSC meetings, which the president chairs, occur whenever the president sees fit. They consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision.

The goal of this committee structure is to foster consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. If officials at one level agree on an issue, it does not need to go to senior officials for a decision. This practice reserves the president’s time and that of members of the Principals Committee for the most complicated and sensitive debates.

When a crisis erupts issues sometimes do not follow the usual path up from the IPCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their expertise, available intelligence, and any existing contingency plans. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level. The policymaking process can also deviate from this model based on the preferences of each president.

For the purposes of this NSC simulation, you will role-play the NSC meeting with the assumption that the committees described have already done their jobs. Any critical information has already been passed to the highest-level decision-makers.

Presidential Decisions

When the president makes a policy decision, it can take the form of a verbal instruction recorded and shared with relevant departments and agencies. The president can also issue formal decisions in documents that lay out the administration’s policy and explain its rationale and goals. These documents have gone by different names under different presidents. President Joe Biden issues national security memoranda and national security study memoranda. President Donald Trump issued national security presidential memoranda.

The president can also issue an executive order (EO). EOs are a more formal and public declaration of policy. In contrast, national security directives are generally directed internally to federal departments and are often classified. In the past, presidents have issued EOs for such purposes as facilitating sanctions against foreign individuals and establishing new offices in government departments to carry out foreign policy aims. For federal agencies, both national security directives and executive orders carry the full force of law.

Although many executive branch departments and agencies are involved in foreign policy, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community form the core of the foreign policy bureaucracy. The Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice often play crucial roles as well.

Department of State

The Department of State conducts the United States’ relations with other countries and international organizations. It maintains U.S. diplomatic presence abroad. The Department of State also issues visas for foreigners to enter the country, aids U.S. citizens overseas, and manages other programs to promote American interests. The secretary of state is the president’s principal foreign affairs advisor and has a keen understanding of the United States’ international relations. They are also well informed on the relationships between foreign countries, and the behavior and interests of their governments.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense carries out U.S. defense policy and maintains U.S. military forces. It includes the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as an array of agencies related to defense. The department employs more than two million military and civilian personnel and operates military bases around the world. The secretary of defense is the head of the department and the president’s principal defense policy advisor. They also stay up-to-date on the security situation in foreign countries and the possibilities and implications of U.S. military involvement. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. armed forces and the president’s top military advisor.

Intelligence Community

The U.S. intelligence community consists of eighteen agencies and organizations, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which gather and analyze intelligence. Each of these agencies has its own mission; for example, the NSA focuses on signals intelligence (information gathered from communications and other electronic signals) and the Defense Intelligence Agency on military information. The director of national intelligence is the president’s principal advisor on intelligence issues. They oversee this network of agencies with the aim of ensuring that they work together and deliver the best possible information to U.S. policymakers.

Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury carries out policy on issues related to the U.S. and global economies and financial systems. The secretary of the treasury serves as one of the president’s chief economic advisors and is responsible for addressing a range of economic concerns. The Treasury’s ten bureaus, which include the U.S. Mint and the Internal Revenue Service, do much of the department’s work, which ranges from collecting tax to printing currency and executing economic sanctions.

Department of Homeland Security

Created soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security works to counter and respond to risks to American security. It focuses on issues such as terrorism prevention, border security and immigration, disaster response, and cybersecurity. Familiar agencies within the department include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. The secretary of homeland security oversees the department and advises the president on relevant issues.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes possible violations of federal law. The Department of Justice represents the U.S. government in legal matters and works more broadly to prevent and respond to crime. Agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration are part of the department, as are divisions focusing on particular areas of law, such as national security and civil rights. Leading the department is the attorney general, who offers legal advice to the president and the heads of other departments.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also known as North Korea, has been pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. This has led to  growing concern among Western countries and North Korea’s neighbors in East Asia. In September 2017, North Korea conducted its most powerful nuclear test yet and declared that the country had perfected its nuclear warhead design. Analysts doubt that North Korea has the rocket technology to accurately deliver a nuclear weapon to the continental United States. Still, most analysts agree that North Korea has a reliable nuclear weapons capability to strike Japan and South Korea, both close U.S. allies. 

The United States, alongside other countries and the United Nations, has used sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince North Korea’s leadership to give up its nuclear weapons. Despite these efforts, North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, continues to pursue the ability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon. He is also determined to deter any initial conventional or nuclear attack by the United States by building a nuclear arsenal that could survive such a strike. Analysts believe that if Kim Jong-un gains these capabilities, dealing with the North Korean threat will become much more difficult for both the United States and other countries.

Hypothetical Decision Point

U.S. military officials have just told the president that, based on debris recovered from a recent North Korean satellite launch, they now believe North Korea has the technology needed to reach the west coast of North America. The launch came days after Kim walked away from nuclear negotiations with the United States, citing concerns over proposed inspections of its nuclear sites. The director of national intelligence informed the president that the launch, combined with North Korea’s ongoing nuclear tests, means that the country is now capable of following through on past threats to fire a nuclear-armed missile at the United States. The president has called a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to discuss how to respond to North Korea’s enhanced capabilities. 

At the end of World War II in 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union each helped liberate Korea from Japanese control. The two countries agreed to divide Korea at the thirty-eighth parallel into two occupation zones. The zones would later become North Korea (backed by the Soviet Union and China) and South Korea (backed by the United States). North and South Korean leaders each wanted to reunify the peninsula under their own leadership and thought that they could do so with the support of their backers. This led to the Korean War, a three-year conflict that started when North Korea invaded the South in an attempt to take control of the entire peninsula. The military conflict ended with an armistice in July 1953. To date, there has been no peace treaty to officially end the war. Throughout much of the Cold War, the two Koreas, each backed by a superpower, competed politically, economically, and militarily for control of the entire peninsula. This struggle has continued to the present day. 

North Korea’s leaders have tried to develop nuclear weapons since at least the mid-1950s. They were impressed by the power of the atomic bomb that the United States used on Japan. North Korea was also on the receiving end of U.S. nuclear threats during the Korean War. Because of this, North Korean leaders came to see nuclear weapons as a way to ensure survival and enhance their status. This desire for nuclear weapons became even more pressing following the end of the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed. Without the support of its former ally, North Korea found itself in a more vulnerable position. By the early 1990s, South Korea had a much larger economy, a better international reputation, and an increasingly powerful military. It was also a young democracy and U.S. ally. North Korea, by contrast, was in economic ruin, militarily weak—at least in terms of conventional, nonnuclear, military power—and largely isolated from the rest of the world (other than China). 

North Korea’s continuing nuclear development became a growing concern for the United States in the 1990s. In 1992, Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Initially, efforts to negotiate the issue with North Korea seemed successful. In 1994, the country promised to dismantle its nuclear program. By 2003, however, these efforts had collapsed. That year, North Korea pulled out of the NPT, kicked out international inspectors from a nuclear facility, and prepared to conduct nuclear tests. Attempts to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table through an initiative known as the Six Party Talks failed over the following years, and on October 9, 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. 

North Korea’s longtime dictator Kim Jong-il died in 2011. The rise of his son Kim Jong-un, gave some analysts and politicians hope that North Korea would return to the negotiating table. However, North Korea has continued to develop its nuclear program. The country conducted nuclear tests in 2013, twice in 2016, and in2017. 

So far, economic sanctions imposed by the United States and other countries have not deterred North Korea’s commitment to developing nuclear weapons. As a result, tensions on the Korean Peninsula have escalated. Although Kim has participated in denuclearization talks with both the United States and South Korea in recent years, these negotiations produced limited results. Since failed summits in 2019, North Korea entered a period of increasing diplomatic isolation.  During this time, it repeatedly halted communications with both the United States and South Korea. The coronavirus pandemic along with ongoing sanctions has isolated North Korea economically as well. Despite strong financial pressures, North Korea continued to strengthen its nuclear development in 2020, testing short-range ballistic missiles and claiming that its nuclear ambitions are a deterrence strategy against U.S. threats.

Even amid growing isolation from the United States, Japan, and South Korea, North Korea is not completely without partners. China has opposed North Korean nuclear development, but also sees North Korea as a strategic buffer against a U.S.-allied South Korea. Accordingly, although it has supported some UN sanctions against the country, it has undermined others and advocated for some to be lifted. Observers also claim that China regularly helps North Korea evade sanctions by exporting goods like coal to the country. 

Russia also maintains a strategic relationship with North Korea. Like China, Russia has historically opposed North Korean nuclear development. However, Russia  sees the country as a strategic partner in its opposition to the United States. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has sought closer relations with North Korea. Russia has specifically sought to buy artillery shells from North Korea to replenish its dwindling stocks. This renewed cooperation is especially concerning for the United States. Analysts fear that in exchange for military supplies, Russia could provide North Korea with rocket technology and materials that could enable the country to improve its missile program. 

North Korea 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. One objective in its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been to develop a deterrent against the United States. Meanwhile, the United States views North Korea as a source of tension and instability, and as a threat to its ally South Korea. 

The most important U.S. interest on the Korean Peninsula is eliminating North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. North Korea already has the capability to hit South Korea and Japan, two critical U.S. allies in Asia, with nuclear missiles. Advancements in its nuclear technology and missile capabilities could pose a serious security threat to the United States. A nuclear attack from North Korea could destroy U.S. cities and kill millions of people. 

The United States is also concerned that a nuclear North Korea could spread, or proliferate, nuclear weapons to countries that do not currently have them. Preventing nuclear proliferation has long been a U.S. foreign policy goal. North Korea could sell nuclear weapons or related technologies to other U.S.-opposed governments or nonstate groups. Worse, its actions could also encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Japan and South Korea could become concerned that the United States would hesitate to honor its alliances and defend them against an attack out of concern that the North Koreans could launch a nuclear strike at the United States. This could create political pressure within Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons of their own to deter North Korea. Such pressure would be a defeat for global nonproliferation efforts and would make any conflict in Northeast Asia far more destructive. 

Last but not least, a North Korea with nuclear weapons could come to believe that it can engage in provocations without consequences. This could include an attack on South Korea aimed at unifying the peninsula.  North Korea, with a fully-fledged nuclear arsenal, could become a far more destabilizing force than before.

With those concerns in mind, the United States has few viable policy options toward North Korea. They include the following:

Attempt to negotiate with North Korea 

The United States could try to revive past negotiations with North Korea to convince it to give up nuclear weapons. The United States could offer several things in return. First, it could broker a peace deal to officially end the Korean War. Washington could also lower or remove sanctions against Pyongyang. The United States could also provide humanitarian aid to North Korea.

If successful, negotiations with North Korea could peacefully remove the threat of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. This would avoid the risk to U.S. military personnel and the costs of military action. It could also avoid any damage to the U.S. position in East Asia that a military strike could cause. Successful negotiations could also build a foundation of trust for further diplomacy. This could include starting a process toward the reunification of the Korean Peninsula. 

This option, however, comes with many risks. The United States has attempted to negotiate many times before without success. There is little guarantee that negotiations will work this time around. Even when past negotiations did produce results, agreements have proven difficult to enforce and have not led to lasting changes. Furthermore, the United States is limited in the incentives it can offer in exchange for denuclearization. North Korea continues to survive under current sanctions. Kim could ultimately decide that a nuclear program is not worth giving up in exchange for relief. If negotiations do produce an agreement and North Korea violates it, the United States risks having given North Korea aid or sanctions relief but received nothing in return. At best, failed negotiations would result in a return to the status quo. At worst, they could prolong the Kim Jong-un regime and the North Korean nuclear program, damage U.S. credibility in the region, and potentially result in nuclear conflict. 

The NSC could choose to pursue negotiations first; should they prove unsuccessful, it could then resort to either of the following options: 

Launch preventive military strikes 

The United States could launch air strikes to destroy 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. Successful preventive strikes would increase the security of the United States and its allies. It would also demonstrate the strength of the U.S. commitment to nonproliferation. Lastly, it would show the commitment  to combating North Korean provocations. This could send an effective warning to North Korea and others against developing nuclear weapons. 

However, this option comes with significant risks. The United States cannot be confident that a preventive strike will guarantee the destruction of all North Korean nuclear capabilities. Moreover, a military strike risks prompting a North Korean retaliation against the United States or against Japan or South Korea, both allies that the United States is treaty-bound to defend. South Korea’s densely populated capital, Seoul, is particularly vulnerable to North Korea’s military because of how close it is to the North. Even limited retaliation by North Korea could lead to many deaths and a high level of destruction in Seoul. The tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in South Korea and any U.S. personnel deployed into or over North Korea as part of the airstrike campaign could also be at risk. Moreover, if North Korea fears losing its nuclear weapons, it could also decide to use them first. 

Accept North Korean nuclearization and attempt to manage the country’s nuclear and missile capabilities 

The United States could accept North Korean nuclear weapons as an unavoidable reality. Instead of trying to roll back North Korea’s nuclear and missile development, it could focus on slowing it down as much as possible through a combination of nonproliferation measures, deterrence, and defense. This approach would include expanding sanctions and cracking down on North Korea’s illegal activities abroad to restrict its access to funds and nuclear materials. Deterrence would entail signaling that any North Korean nuclear use would prompt a U.S. response that could destroy North Korea. The U.S. military would also maintain strong deterrence through greater cooperation with Japan and South Korea. Finally, the United States would expand its defense capabilities in the region. This could entail increasing troop levels in South Korea The United States could also place additional advanced weapons systems on the peninsula, or move U.S. naval units into the region.

These efforts would be driven by the assumption that North Korea is highly unlikely to negotiate and that the best path forward is to isolate North Korea until the regime collapses or changes. This would essentially constitute a continuation of existing U.S. policy. For the United States, this option is the least demanding but also the least rewarding. North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs would likely remain in place, posing a continued threat to the United States and its allies. The management option could be attractive, however, should NSC members find the other two options to be too risky. 

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

All National Security Council (NSC) members except the president will write a position memo before the role-play. You can find more details about writing position memos under Student Resources. The president will write a presidential directive after the role-play. More details about that are also under Student Resources.

What is a memorandum?

After the debate and deliberation close, the president will announce his or her decision, to be later finalized in the form of a written presidential directive. If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the president’s announcement.

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the final presidential decision.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of crafting foreign policy. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, a written reflection.

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the in-class debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your policy review memo: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the National Security Council discussion and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the full spectrum of arguments and considerations that arose. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the president’s decision where appropriate.

If you played the role of president in the simulation, your memo should still reflect your personal opinion. You can comment on the course of action you ordered as president, further justify it, write more extensively on the options you dismissed, or suggest and support alternate options.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see whether and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

Note: If you are assigned the role of president, you will not write a position memo. Instead, you will write a two-page presidential directive (PD) at the conclusion of the role-play. You will address the PD, which will follow a memo format, to the NSC members and inform them of your final decision regarding the policy option or options to be implemented (see below).

If your teacher has chosen to assign you the role of general advisor to the president, you will not need to write the position memo from a particular institutional position. Instead, you will have the flexibility to approach the issue from your own perspective, incorporating a comprehensive assessment of the crisis into your argument.

Click here to see a sample of a position memo.

The format of the presidential directive is simpler than that of a position memo. A directive contains a record of the policy option or options that the president has chosen as well as the accompanying orders to various parts of the government with details on how to carry out these decisions.

Click here to see a sample presidential directive.

During the simulated NSC meeting, you will meet to debate and discuss U.S. policy options in response to the issues outlined in the case. Consistent with the NSC’s mission to advise the president, you should raise the issues that are most important for the president to consider. This will enable them to make the most informed decision on policy options. Though you may or may not agree with this decision, your responsibility as an NSC member is to provide the best possible analysis and advice from the perspective of your role.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.