Follow us on social

2020-10-12t000000z_857557961_mt1ltana000acyuv3_rtrmadp_3_asia-north-korea

North Korean military parade offers a sober reminder of the original ‘forever war’

Kim Jong Un showed off some new military gear but it’s important that Washington doesn’t overreact.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

North Korea’s military parade this weekend celebrating the 75th anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party was streamed for an international audience. It was expected to be the largest military parade in North Korea’s history. The event was pre-recorded Friday evening and streamed Saturday evening (Korea Standard Time) via Korean Central Television (KCTV), a state-owned broadcaster in North Korea.

In his speech, Chairman Kim Jong Un struck a somber and introspective tone. He repeatedly thanked the North Korean people for withstanding the “harsh circumstances” of this year, shedding tears at one point. In a nod to the public health challenges stemming from the COVID pandemic and natural disasters, Kim gave special recognition to the People’s Army, calling its efforts “heroic.”  

His message to the foreign audience was one of measured defiance. He avoided being overly provocative, choosing instead to let the military parade do the talking. Indeed, nuclear experts were looking for clues to a new strategic weapon that Kim Jong Un promised in his new year speech. And they were not disappointed: North Korea unveiled a new 11-axle intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) at the parade, adding to North Korea’s growing nuclear and chemical arsenal

This is the latest reminder that the longer the world waits, the more dangerous the Korean Peninsula will become. Any escalation in tension on the Korean Peninsula — home to the original “forever war” — would be incredibly deadly. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 300,000 would die in the first days of fighting through conventional weapons alone. 

Any conflict with North Korea would have immediate consequences on American economy as well. The 2018 study by the Economic Intelligence Unit found that a war on the Korean peninsula would destroy 25,000 direct and indirect auto jobs in the United States in its first year. At a time when the U.S. economy is contracting due to the COVID pandemic, the last thing Americans need right now is an accidental conflict between two nuclear-armed states. 

So what should the United States do?

Rather than overreact to Pyongyang’s predictable display of force, Washington should focus on the underlying cause of North Korea’s behavior: its geopolitical insecurity. Such concern will not disappear overnight. But trying to reach peace on the Korean Peninsula, as stated in the joint statement of the Singapore Summit, is impossible without addressing North Korea’s perennial need for bombs as a security guarantee. One way to do this is by declaring the seven-decades long Korean War over and signing a peace treaty to end that chapter of violence between the United States, South Korea, North Korea, and China.

The broader question is in defining the United States’ core strategic interests in the region. Is it indefinite militarism that so clearly benefits the military-industrial complex at the expense of lasting peace and stability in East Asia? So far, the United States appears to be more fixated on maintaining 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea than answering the basic question of to what end.

The long-term goal of U.S. grand strategy should be to facilitate the creation of a peaceful global order consisting of fully sovereign states capable of providing for their own security, rather than to perpetuate dependency in American military or American weapons. 

In this weekend’s parade, Kim Jong Un said he would develop nuclear weapons in order to “defend the rights to independence and existence.” It is time for Washington to be equally honest about U.S. interests in the region. 


Pyongyang, North Korea.- North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (center) participates in the celebration to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party (WPK) in Pyongyang, North Korea on October 11, 2020. At the celebration a large-scale military parade, banquet, fireworks, and gymnastics and art shows were held.
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Lockheed Martin NASA
Top photo credit: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, Colo. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

The Pentagon spent $4 trillion over 5 years. Contractors got 54% of it.

Military Industrial Complex

Advocates of ever-higher Pentagon spending frequently argue that we must throw more money at the department to “support the troops.” But recent budget proposals and a new research paper issued by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University suggest otherwise.

The paper, which I co-authored with Stephen Semler, found that 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending from 2020 to 2024 went to military contractors. The top five alone — Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion) – received $771 billion in Pentagon contracts over that five year period.

keep readingShow less
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.