North Korea's Kim calls for rapid nuclear buildup
South Korea and its ally the United States kicked off joint military drills this week, including testing an upgraded response to heightened North Korean nuclear threats.
Pyongyang regularly criticises such drills as rehearsals for invasion and sometimes responds with weapons tests, but Seoul and Washington say they are purely defensive.
The 11-day annual exercises, called Ulchi Freedom Shield, will be on a similar scale to 2024 but adjusted by rescheduling 20 out of 40 field training events to September, South Korea's military said earlier. Those delays come as South Korean President Lee Jae Myung says he wants to ease tensions with North Korea, though analysts are sceptical about Pyongyang's response.
The exercises were a "clear expression of their intention to remain most hostile and confrontational" to North Korea, Kim said during his visit to a navy destroyer on Monday, according to KCNA's English translation of his remarks.
He said the security environment required the North to "rapidly expand" its nuclear armament, noting that recent US-South Korea exercises involved a "nuclear element".
A report by the Federation of American Scientists last year concluded that while North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to build up to 90 nuclear warheads, it had likely assembled closer to 50.
North Korea plans to build a third 5,000-tonne Choe Hyon-class destroyer by October next year and is testing cruise and anti-air missiles for those warships.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
There's a new triangle in US foreign policy
This week's White House meetings on the Ukraine war have demonstrated how drastically the world has changed. The US president wants to broker a deal that ends the fighting but doesn't seem overly concerned about the details. As long as Donald Trump can claim the status of international peacemaker and perhaps win a much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, he will probably be satisfied. It's unmistakable political theatre. Until now, in any such situation, there would be two camps: Russia versus a US-led western front backing Ukraine. But US policy has become so unrecognisable that there are now instead three poles – Russia, the US, and Ukraine backed by Europe – creating a triangle with Washington as the hypotenuse. That means valuable European leverage and energy that could be used to pressure Russia is being diverted to prevent the US president from abandoning Ukraine, Europe, Nato and traditional US national security doctrines. They're succeeding on that thus far, but there's no progress towards ending the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears happy to continue talks with the fighting ongoing, confident his far more numerous forces can wear down the Ukrainian military. He's concentrating on shifting Mr Trump's attention and rhetoric away from demands for an immediate ceasefire, with some apparent success. Mr Trump is instead focused on triangular talks between the three sides. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other. They will only make concessions, if at all, to third parties such as the US or Europeans. It's difficult to imagine a positive result emerging from a trilateral meeting while negative scenarios abound. Were this summit to take place, it could have a questionable outcome because neither party may be willing to make concessions to the other The sensible approach would be what has been, not entirely unsuccessfully, pursued between Israel and Hamas, with third party negotiators talking to both delegations. But proximity talks between professional diplomats is box office poison. To Mr Trump – once a highly experienced and skilful television producer – a three-way summit may sound like a potential blockbuster. The cast is perfect if they play their roles together in person, and numerous readily available settings, such as the White House or a similar venue in Western Europe, would be a perfect backdrop for a magnificent peace-making spectacle. But it's hard to see how the Ukrainian and Russian positions can be bridged without a major change in the military and strategic equation on the ground. One side will have to essentially win. It's not impossible to imagine a ceasefire or even armistice in which Ukraine refuses to formally cede any land but that leaves parts of it in Russian hands. But even this bitter struggle over land isn't the core of the conflict. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 with the confident expectation of establishing its own governing authority in Kyiv and eliminating Ukraine's increasingly western-oriented state and society it found profoundly threatening. Ukraine, democratising despite rampant corruption, was even a 'bad example' to Russians about their own political alternatives. Certainly, Russia may want to annex Ukrainian territory, now packaged as potential 'land swaps'. But what it really wants is to ensure that Ukraine doesn't integrate further into the West creating, from Mr Putin's perspective, an intolerable threat to Russia along much of its western border. But greater integration into the West and Europe is precisely what Ukraine intends. These two positions are clearly irreconcilable and far more significant than the land deal on which Mr Trump seems focused. Potential US or western 'security guarantees' for Ukraine cut precisely to the point. Ukraine already received guarantees from the west, and Russia itself, in their denuclearisation agreements between 1991–1994. None of this protected Ukraine from Russia in 2014 or 2022. The closest thing to a reliable guarantee would be for Ukraine to join Nato, the ultimate Russian red line. Mr Trump's negotiator, Steve Witkoff, spoke about the potential for new guarantees that would mimic Article 5 of the Nato treaty that is commonly interpreted to commit the US and other signatories to militarily defending any Nato member that comes under attack. It would effectively throw an American and European nuclear umbrella over Ukraine. Unfortunately, Mr Trump has indicated several times that not only is he highly suspicious of Nato in general, he does not accept that Article 5 commits the US to defending anyone. Indeed, the Article was originally crafted to allow isolationist Americans to read it in this manner, although this has never been a White House perspective until now. This conflict is simultaneously simple yet profound. Ukraine wants to be independent, increasingly democratic and gradually join the EU and possibly even Nato. It sees its future as shaped by an identity that looks West rather than East. For Russia, all of that is simply unacceptable. That leaves Mr Trump seeking an agreement he probably can't get, especially if he allows Mr Putin to keep steering him away from the necessity for an immediate ceasefire. Russia can continue to wear down Ukraine on the battlefield, although a resumption of robust US military aid might eventually make that prohibitively costly. Mr Putin wants time to press for additional advantage, while Ukraine needs all the help it can get. Ukraine still has rational hopes that even under Mr Trump, Washington will eventually resume backing its resistance to Moscow. But Mr Putin appears to skilfully be playing for time, equally rationally confident that his larger forces can wear the Ukrainians down, especially without US military aid. We clearly see the extraordinary transformation of the global strategic landscape. What ought to be two sides is now three, with the US appearing to no longer lead, or even participate in, a western alliance defending Ukraine. The 2022 Russian invasion may well be remembered as the turning point to a new era in international relations in which, for a time at least, whatever rules once existed are gone, and only might makes right. Under Mr Trump, Washington seems perfectly OK with that.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Syrian foreign minister held meeting with Israeli officials in Paris
Asaad al-Shaibani, Syria's foreign minister, participated in a US-mediated meeting with an Israeli delegation in Paris on Tuesday, according to Syria's state news agency Sana. Syria and Israel have held US-mediated talks in recent months, though it has rarely been acknowledged in Syrian state media. The most recent discussions focused on de-escalation in southern Syria and non-interference in Syrian domestic affairs, Sana reported. 'These talks are taking place under US mediation, as part of diplomatic efforts aimed at enhancing security and stability in Syria and preserving the unity and integrity of its territory,' Sana reported. The two sides discussed re-activating the 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria, which created a UN buffer zone in Syria's Golan Heights, an area that has been occupied by Israel since 1967. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters When Bashar al-Assad's government fell in December, Israel occupied the buffer zone and declared that the 1974 agreement was null and void. There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials about the talks on Tuesday. Earlier this week, Israeli media reported that Ron Dermer, Israel's strategic affairs minister, was set to attend the meeting, alongside Tom Barrack, the US envoy to Syria. It was the second such meeting to take place between the two countries in Paris in less than a month, Reuters reported. Sweida after the ceasefire: Executions, a mass grave, and the voices left behind Read More » Dermer and Shaibani also met in Azerbaijan a few weeks ago. The talks last month centred around the situation in the southern region of Sweida. Violence in Sweida erupted on 13 July between Bedouin fighters, Druze factions and government forces, killing over 1,500 people. Israel also carried out strikes on Syrian cities, including the capital Damascus, framing its attacks as an effort to protect the Druze minority. A US-brokered truce ended the fighting, while the Syrian government said it had set up a committee to investigate the violence. Since the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in December, Syria has been rocked by waves of sectarian violence which new President Ahmed al-Sharaa has struggled to manage. In March, attacks by Assad loyalists in the coastal province of Latakia provoked a violent sectarian backlash against the Alawi population, which the former president and his family were members of. At least 1,500 Alawis were killed in the subsequent violence, with a Reuters investigation tracing much of it back to officials in Damascus.
Sharjah 24
6 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
US agrees to talks with Brazilian WTO delegates on tariffs
Brazil approached the global trade body in early August after President Donald Trump raised duties on more than a third of US-bound exports from the Latin American powerhouse, including key items like coffee, beef, and sugar. Trump hit Brazil with some of his highest tariff rates as punishment for what he calls a "witch hunt" against his ally, former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, who is on trial for allegedly plotting to attempt a coup. "The United States accepts the request of Brazil to enter into consultations," read a letter dated August 15 from the Washington WTO delegation and published on the organization's website. "We stand ready to confer with officials from your mission on a mutually convenient date for consultations," it continued. The US letter cautioned that some of the issues raised by Brazil "are issues of national security not susceptible to review or capable of resolution by WTO dispute settlement." The WTO consultation process involves seeking a negotiated solution before moving into arbitration. Trump's tariff order also charged that the Brazilian government's recent policies and actions threatened the US economy, national security, and foreign policy. Unlike most countries targeted by Washington's reciprocal tariffs, the United States runs a trade surplus with Brazil, not a deficit.
