@EyelessMC@kiwifarms.cc So of the many absolutes we can be sure of in this part of the world is that the NK government is self interested and is prepared to do anything to stay in power and thereby safe. We can expect that if using chemicals weapons will keep them from an angry mob of pitchforks then those weapons will be employed. If feeding people just enough to keep them from being starving revolutionaries but not fed well enough to be reading and thinking citizens then it will be done. As it turns out this is much easier to do on the international stage than with the first option. Further, one can surmise from the nuclear weapons and adjacent programs that the goal of said programs is to support the state's sovereignty. We can imagine how poorly life would change for the general staff and the high echelons of NK government if it went to war and lost. Ptichforks or UN trial. Neither are good from their point of view. The nature of the nuclear weapons themselves tells us a couple key points in NK military strategy. The first is that they chose to funnel a majority of their funds (early in the dev cycle) into whats known as theater based weaponry. Commonly called 'tactical' nuclear weapons by media. These weapons are smaller and more expensive to develop, produce, maintain, and deploy than their "strategic" counterparts. Rather than save the money to make a bigger or better fed infantry, equipped armored corps, or trained fires batteries the NK military chose instead of the path of least resistance (build big bomb, make simple parts, use lumbering big plane for delivery) they chose instead to build V8 sized weapons, AND mobile launch platforms WITH guidance systems, all while servicing a type weapon type the US military has phased out of it's order of battle decades ago. The other clue we can extrapolate much from is the placement of the nuclear forces in NK. These shorter range systems are never placed on the border. That would be risky for NK but they have better spots in mind. The moment the ROK and US armies blast over the DMZ the Norks know they are not going to be able to last against the better fed, equipped, and trained soldiers. Thus the tactical withdrawals will be covered by whatever ARTY and CAS is available, and in the worst parts of the line of retreat will be where the tactical nukes go. What better way to deny a corridor of advance then by irradiating it to hell? Do it more than once of course. Imagine the 8th army pushing to Poyang through a paved road as they chase a rearguard of enemy mechanized infantry. The Norks detonate a 500t nuke at Phyongsan just before you get there as just as they leave. The bomb has a very weak blast but still dirty af. 8th army will have no choice but to double back on the official roads, or take a risk and flank west or east though mountains and marshy rice fields or risk using the highway. Or punch through the cloud. Ultimately the planers in NK know not a single US senator will sign off on brining irradiated American caskets home for Christmas and thus the threat of nuclear exchange is a deterrent against invasion. TLDR: War in the Korean peninsula is never going to happen because the calculus says its not worth the win.