North Korea’s asymmetric provocations over the last decades can be classified into two periods: tactical provocations at sea in 1970–1990 and strategic (nuclear) provocations in 2000–2020. What is the logic underlying the North Korean imbroglio? And how does the former period differ from the latter? The first set of provocations was intended to shift the threat imbalance caused by a widening gap in conventional military capabilities into a balance of insecurity, where the weaker North Korean side faced South Korea and the combined ROK–US forces. The second set was intended to shift the balance of insecurity into an imbalance of terror while ensuring that only Pyongyang would be armed with nuclear weapons in the area. The “gray zone” discourse of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (rather than North Korea) ended up bolstering North Korea’s nuclear program, while South Korea intensified only its conventional weapons program.

中文翻译：

---

朝鲜半岛安全不平衡

朝鲜过去几十年的不对称挑衅可分为两个时期：1970-1990 年的海上战术挑衅和 2000-2020 年的战略（核）挑衅。朝鲜纷争背后的逻辑是什么？前者与后者有何不同？第一次挑衅旨在将常规军事能力差距扩大导致的威胁失衡转变为不安全的平衡，即较弱的朝鲜一方面对韩国和韩美联军。第二组旨在将不安全的平衡转变为恐怖的不平衡，同时确保该地区只有平壤拥有核武器。