Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un: Three Nuclear Crises and America’s Response
Key Takeaways
- Background: The North Korean nuclear issue began in the early 1990s following the Cold War’s end and has persisted for over 30 years.
- Current State: Across three Kim family leaders, North Korea’s nuclear capability has advanced to include ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
- Implications: “Policy oscillation”—where each U.S. administration shifts its North Korea approach—has deepened Pyongyang’s distrust.
Why Is North Korea Obsessed with Nuclear Weapons?
June 1994. The United States was considering a “surgical strike” on North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facility. The Korean Peninsula came to the brink of a second Korean War. Then former President Jimmy Carter visited Pyongyang, negotiated with Kim Il-sung (김일성), and the Geneva Agreed Framework emerged.
Thirty years later, in 2024, North Korea possesses ICBMs capable of striking the U.S. mainland. Its nuclear warhead count is estimated in the dozens. How did we get here?
The First Crisis: The Kim Il-sung Era (1990s)
The Shock of Cold War’s End
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, North Korea’s world crumbled. Losing its chief patron, the North faced a triple crisis: diplomatic isolation, economic disaster, and power succession to Kim Jong-il (김정일). Meanwhile, South Korea succeeded in its “Nordpolitik,” establishing relations with communist states.
Gripped by existential fear, North Korea declared withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in March 1993. The first nuclear crisis had begun.
Clinton’s Dual-Track Approach
The Clinton administration pursued two tracks simultaneously. One was military: bombing Yongbyon was seriously discussed. The other was diplomatic: Carter’s visit to Pyongyang and his negotiation with Kim Il-sung proved pivotal.
The Geneva Agreed Framework was signed in October 1994. North Korea would freeze its nuclear program; the U.S. would provide two light-water reactors and pursue normalization.
The Agreement Unravels
But that November, Republicans won the U.S. midterm elections. A Congress hostile to engagement took power, and light-water reactor construction stalled. Kim Il-sung died shortly after the agreement, and his successor Kim Jong-il focused on regime survival.
The Geneva Framework drifted without implementation.
The Second Crisis: The Kim Jong-il Era (2000s)
“Axis of Evil”
After 9/11, President George W. Bush designated North Korea, along with Iraq and Iran, as part of the “Axis of Evil” in his 2002 State of the Union. American hostility toward Pyongyang was now explicit.
That October, the U.S. revealed that North Korea was secretly operating a uranium enrichment program. The Geneva Framework collapsed entirely. North Korea withdrew from the NPT again and conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006.
The Six-Party Talks
As crisis escalated, the Six-Party Talks (U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia) began in 2003. The September 2005 Joint Statement promised North Korean denuclearization in exchange for U.S. security guarantees.
But the agreement quickly unraveled. U.S. financial sanctions (the BDA issue), North Korean missile launches, and nuclear tests followed. The Six-Party Talks effectively ended after 2008.
The Third Crisis: The Kim Jong-un Era (2012-Present)
Nuclear Capability Advances
After Kim Jong-il’s death in 2011, Kim Jong-un (김정은) assumed power and declared the “Byungjin” policy (병진노선)—simultaneous development of nuclear weapons and the economy. Nuclear tests accelerated. In 2017, North Korea successfully tested a hydrogen bomb and the Hwasong-15 ICBM.
North Korea’s nuclear capability has moved beyond being a “bargaining chip” toward becoming an established fact.
Obama’s “Strategic Patience”
The Obama administration adopted “Strategic Patience”—refusing substantive negotiations until North Korea demonstrated willingness to denuclearize. The result? North Korea used that time to advance its nuclear capabilities.
Trump: From “Fire and Fury” to Summits
President Trump warned of “fire and fury” in 2017, maximizing military tensions. Then in 2018, he dramatically pivoted to arrange the first-ever U.S.-DPRK summit. Three meetings followed: Singapore (2018), Hanoi (2019), and Panmunjom (2019).
But the Hanoi summit collapsed. North Korea’s “step-by-step denuclearization” clashed with America’s demand for a “grand bargain.” No substantive progress was made.
Biden: North Korea Drops in Priority
The Biden administration did not treat North Korea as a top priority. U.S.-China strategic competition and the Ukraine war were more urgent. Meanwhile, North Korea resumed nuclear and missile tests, continuing capability development.
State-Building Analysis
Political Leadership
Each U.S. presidential transition brought dramatic policy shifts. Clinton’s engagement → Bush’s hardline → Obama’s neglect → Trump’s sudden pivot → Biden’s deprioritization. This “policy oscillation” sent Pyongyang a message: “Just wait it out.”
Bureaucratic Apparatus
Significant divisions existed among the State Department, Defense Department, and intelligence agencies. Congress also played a crucial role. The 1994 Republican takeover obstructed implementation of the Geneva Framework.
Social Forces
Public opinion in both South Korea and the U.S. influences North Korea policy. The recent rise of “independent nuclear armament” sentiment in South Korea reflects anxiety about extended deterrence reliability.
Foreign Powers
North Korea is not China’s puppet. Pyongyang acts according to its own strategic calculus. Chinese influence has limits.
Three Scenarios
Scenario 1: Freeze and Manage
Abandon complete denuclearization and settle for freezing further nuclear and missile development. Realistic, but amounts to accepting a nuclear-armed North Korea.
Scenario 2: Prolonged Stalemate
No negotiations; sanctions and deterrence continue. North Korea’s capabilities keep advancing while the peninsula maintains “unstable peace.”
Scenario 3: Crisis Escalation
Accidental clash or miscalculation maximizes military tension. U.S. preemptive strike or North Korean provocation could be the trigger.
Conclusion: Lessons from the Past
Timeline:
Mar 1993 - North Korea declares NPT withdrawal (First Crisis)
Oct 1994 - Geneva Agreed Framework signed
Jan 2002 - Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech
Oct 2006 - North Korea's first nuclear test
Sep 2017 - North Korea's hydrogen bomb test
Jun 2018 - Singapore Summit
Feb 2019 - Hanoi Summit collapses
What lessons does 30 years of nuclear history offer?
- Inconsistency is the problem. U.S. policy oscillation told North Korea: “Just wait it out.”
- North Korea’s nuclear obsession runs deep. It views nuclear weapons as regime survival insurance and won’t easily abandon them.
- Time has been on North Korea’s side. The longer negotiations stalled, the more capabilities advanced.
- Congress and public opinion matter. Executive agreements cannot endure without congressional support.
Can the U.S. and international community accept a nuclear-armed North Korea? Can coercive means prevent it? Between these two questions, the Korean Peninsula’s fate will be decided.
References:
- Jang Se-ho, “Analysis and Prospects of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” INSS Strategic Report (2022)
- Leon V. Sigal, Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea (1998)
- Victor Cha, The Impossible State: North Korea, Past and Future (2012)
- Jeon Bong-geun, “30 Years of North Korean Nuclear Negotiations: Lessons from Failure” INSS Issue Brief (2023)