NYT Opinion: Why US diplomacy must adapt to North Korea’s nuclear reality

In a recent incisive opinion piece by The New York Times, the entrenched US policy of demanding North Korea’s complete denuclearisation is critically examined against the backdrop of Pyongyang’s rapidly advancing nuclear arsenal. The article argues for a fundamental shift in Washington’s approach — from unrealistic disarmament demands to pragmatic diplomacy — to better manage the escalating nuclear threat and foster regional stability. This report distills the key arguments and insights from that compelling analysis.

The opinion piece opens by contrasting the United States’ recent airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities with North Korea’s nuclear posture. North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, views possession of nuclear weapons not merely as a strategic asset but as essential to regime survival, particularly given the US’s willingness to conduct pre-emptive strikes against nuclear-aspiring states like Iran. This calculus has driven North Korea’s relentless push for nuclear weapons and missile development ever since Kim inherited power over a decade ago.

Despite decades of global efforts to prevent Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, the isolated nation has reportedly amassed around 50 nuclear warheads, with enough fissile material for up to 40 more. Its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) can likely reach all major US cities, while thousands of shorter-range missiles threaten US bases and regional allies.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile complex spans dozens of sites, many underground, with continuous expansions in uranium enrichment facilities such as the Kangson plant and the Yongbyon nuclear complex — a hub for plutonium and thermonuclear materials production.

Unlike Iran, North Korea’s nuclear program is far more advanced, well-tested, and integrated into its military doctrine. The United States, particularly under President Trump’s administration, publicly acknowledged North Korea as a nuclear power yet failed to achieve meaningful denuclearisation. Past diplomatic efforts, including the 1994 Agreed Framework and brief détente during Trump-Kim summits in 2018-2019, ultimately collapsed due to mutual mistrust and US insistence on full denuclearization. The Trump's administration’s attempts to initiate talks without preconditions have so far yielded no progress.

The article contends that continued insistence on “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” is an outdated and unrealistic policy that blocks opportunities for diplomacy. The US military already plans based on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, underscoring the need to accept this reality diplomatically. The piece urges Washington to devise a new strategy: freezing North Korea’s nuclear program in exchange for economic sanctions relief, despite anticipated backlash from key allies South Korea and Japan who fear rewarding Pyongyang’s provocations.

The author highlights the enormous scale and sophistication of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure, based on analysis of satellite imagery by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. These insights make it clear that dismantling the program entirely is highly improbable. Instead, engaging North Korea through diplomatic channels is the only viable way to curb the growing threat and manage escalation risks.

Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions have only intensified after witnessing the US-led regime change in Iraq, reinforcing fears of invasion without a nuclear deterrent. North Korea has not only developed strategic hydrogen bombs but also smaller tactical nuclear warheads designed for battlefield use. It has forged new alliances with Russia, enhancing missile technologies and potentially nuclear submarine capabilities, while China remains a traditional supporter.

The opinion piece critiques Washington’s failure to establish formal diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, a barrier that undermines crisis communication and conflict prevention. It calls for recognition of North Korea’s nuclear status—not as endorsement but as a pragmatic step toward de-escalation and stability.

While acknowledging North Korea’s regime abuses and the suffering caused by sanctions, the article argues that the nuclear threat demands a more sensible, less rigid U.S. policy. The U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises now routinely consider nuclear contingencies, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

In conclusion, the article warns that continuing the same denuclearization strategy is akin to “insanity,” repeating failed policies without achieving results. Instead, it advocates for a diplomatic roadmap that accepts North Korea as a nuclear power, aims to freeze further development, and opens communication channels to reduce the risk of war.

This New York Times opinion piece provides a clear and urgent call for a strategic pivot in US policy toward North Korea. It underscores that only through pragmatic diplomacy—grounded in the acceptance of nuclear realities—can the US hope to contain Pyongyang’s nuclear threat and foster lasting regional security.

By Sabina Mammadli