Skip to footer

Nuclear North Korea: 6 ways it differs from Iran

Military hard-liners in North Korea are believed to view the agreement under which Iran is scaling down its nuclear program as a dangerous precedent. Indeed, they see that deal as the type that North Korea should avoid and advocate a tough policy that precludes meaningful talks on the North’s program for fabricating nuclear warheads, according to analysts here.

Given this stance, are there lessons from the recently negotiated agreement to scale down Iran's nuclear program that can be used in North Korea? Perhaps, but the two differ substantially. Some questions  – and answers – on the North Korean and Iranian programs:

1. What are the central differences between their programs?

Jason Lee/Reuters/File
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un waves during a parade to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the signing of a truce in the 1950-1953 Korean War, at Kim Il-sung Square in Pyongyang July 27, 2013.

  • By Donald Kirk Correspondent

North Korea’s program is all about building nuclear weapons. By contrast, Iran has always maintained that it only wants to build facilities to produce nuclear energy and has never produced a warhead. Moreover, North Korea has formally withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty while Iran remains a signatory. “North Korea can learn nothing from the Iranian deal,” says Paik Hak-soon, director of North Korean studies at the Sejong Institute, a think tank that has often done studies on behalf of the South Korean government. North Korea faces “a totally different situation” when it comes to comparisons with Iran, Mr. Paik says.

The two countries have also pursued different paths. North Korea has produced warheads with plutonium from a five-megawatt experimental reactor at its Yongbyon nuclear complex. Iran’s nuclear energy program is based on highly enriched uranium (HEU). However, North Korea in recent years, has launched its own HEU program. Some analysts believe that North Korea has already built warheads with HEU and that HEU may have detonated the device that North Korea exploded in its most recent underground nuclear test in February 2013. 

1 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.