JOHANNESBURG – NORTH Korea’s possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear weapons is increasingly being cited by global commentators as a rational deterrent against what they describe as unprovoked aggression by powerful states, particularly following the recent crisis involving Venezuela and the United States.
Across the Global South and among anti-war analysts worldwide, concerns are intensifying that national sovereignty is under growing threat from superpowers.
Critics argue that military interventions, regime-change operations, and economic coercion — most notably by the United States and its allies — have created an international system where weaker nations remain exposed unless they possess credible deterrence.
The debate has sharpened following U.S. military invasion against Venezuela and the subsequent kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, an episode Venezuelan officials and allied commentators have condemned as an illegal invasion and abduction.
While Washington maintains its actions were lawful, critics say the incident exemplifies the selective application of international law.
Against this backdrop, North Korea’s long-standing nuclear program is being reinterpreted by some analysts as strategic self-defence rather than provocation.
Indian academic Amiyah Singh described Pyongyang’s security posture as a necessary response to global power imbalances.
“Nuclear weapons and long-range ICBMs are not for launching unprovoked wars,” Singh said. “They exist to deter them. If Venezuela had possessed such deterrence, would its sovereignty have been violated so easily?”
Singh warned that smaller states increasingly face a stark choice: vulnerability or deterrence.
U.S. journalist Jackson Hinkle echoed the sentiment in blunt terms, writing on social media: “North Korea has a message to the world: Get nukes!”
North Korea has continued testing ballistic missiles capable of reaching major U.S. cities, including Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.
Despite sanctions and diplomatic pressure, Pyongyang has persisted — a stance supporters argue has prevented direct military confrontation.
Political analyst Sy Marcus Hervé Traoré framed these actions as deliberate geopolitical signalling.
“North Korea’s missile launches coincide with its condemnation of U.S. strikes on Venezuela, which it called a serious violation of sovereignty. These are calculated warnings, not random acts,” Traoré said.
Geopolitical commentator Syrian Girl reinforced this argument:
“There is one leader the United States will not attempt to kidnap — Kim Jong Un — because he has nuclear weapons.”
Historical precedent was highlighted by Aaj Ka Itihaas, which observed: “Nuclear deterrence is not about fighting wars. It is about preventing them. History has repeated this lesson relentlessly.”
Others offered more hard-edged assessments. One Da Costa argued deterrence works because of fear, not goodwill.
“The U.S. is not afraid of North Korea’s weapons — it fears the consequences. A nuclear strike would cripple America beyond recovery. That reality alone restrains escalation,” he said.
Strategic commentator Wind Track dismissed conventional defenses as inadequate.
“Air defense systems mean little against a superpower. A small nuclear arsenal and hypersonic capability change the equation entirely. No one dares provoke you,” he said.
Political analyst Damaan Philly warned of broader consequences if current trends continue.
“The United States is sliding toward predatory behavior. Venezuela will not be the last target. This path risks triggering a wider global conflict,” he cautioned.
While advocates argue nuclear weapons prevent invasion, their dangers remain unmatched.
Nuclear war would cause mass casualties, long-term radiation damage, environmental collapse, and potential nuclear winter.
Entire ecosystems could be poisoned for generations, threatening global food systems and human survival.
Yet it is precisely this catastrophic potential that underpins deterrence theory — the belief that the fear of mutual destruction prevents reckless aggression.
Many developing nations argue history supports their fears. States without nuclear weapons have frequently faced invasion, sanctions, or destabilisation, while nuclear-armed countries are treated with caution.
The United States has previously conducted military interventions or invasions in Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere.
Critics say these precedents explain why non-nuclear states fear external domination and coercion.
For these countries, nuclear weapons are viewed not as tools of conquest, but as shields against interference.
The Venezuela crisis has revived fundamental questions about sovereignty, power, and survival in an increasingly unequal world order.
As confidence in international institutions weakens and unilateral military actions continue, many nations are reassessing what security truly requires.
Whether nuclear deterrence ultimately preserves peace or accelerates humanity toward catastrophe remains unresolved.
What is clear is that the push toward deterrence is driven not by ideology, but by fear — and by a growing belief that, without it, sovereignty itself may no longer be guaranteed.
— CAJ News
