North Korea Launches Ballistic Missile Over the Sea in Latest Show of Force

On May 26, 2026, North Korea fired close-range ballistic missiles (CRBMs) and artillery rockets from the city of Jongju toward the West Sea [1]. The projectiles flew roughly 80 kilometers before splashing down — a modest distance by the standards of Pyongyang's arsenal [2]. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff also reported the launch included multiple rocket launchers and what appeared to be suicide drones, marking a rare simultaneous deployment of mixed weapons systems [3].

The launch was North Korea's eighth ballistic missile firing of 2026 and its first since April 19, when the country tested short-range missiles fitted with cluster bomb warheads [1]. By itself, a close-range ballistic missile traveling 50 miles poses no direct threat to Guam or the U.S. mainland. But the launch is one data point in a pattern that has reshaped the security landscape of Northeast Asia over the past 14 years — and exposed the failure of every international mechanism designed to prevent it.

The Numbers: A Testing Cadence Without Precedent

Under Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il — the first two leaders of the Kim dynasty — North Korea conducted a combined total of roughly 31 to 33 missile tests over several decades [4]. Since Kim Jong Un assumed power in late 2011, that figure has exploded. Between 2012 and 2025, North Korea conducted more than 272 missile launches, according to the CNS North Korea Missile Test Database maintained by the Nuclear Threat Initiative [5].

Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation / NTI CNS Database

Data as of May 26, 2026CSV

The year 2022 marked the all-time peak: 69 ballistic missile tests in a single year, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) theoretically capable of reaching the continental United States [6]. Testing dropped to 30 launches in both 2023 and 2024 before a partial resumption in 2025 and into 2026 [5]. The 2018 pause — zero tests — coincided with Kim's summit diplomacy with then-President Donald Trump, a window that closed after the Hanoi summit collapsed in February 2019 [7].

The testing tempo under Kim Jong Un amounts to roughly eight times the combined output of his predecessors. This is not incremental escalation. It represents a fundamental strategic commitment to building a diversified nuclear delivery capability across every range category — from close-range battlefield weapons to ICBMs.

What Was Launched — and What It Signals

The May 26 launch involved CRBMs, defined as ballistic missiles with a range under 300 kilometers [3]. These weapons are designed for battlefield use on the Korean Peninsula, not for striking distant targets. However, the test occurred alongside artillery rockets and reported suicide drones, suggesting North Korea is rehearsing combined-arms scenarios that integrate conventional and potentially nuclear-capable short-range systems [2].

The broader arsenal is what concerns defense planners. North Korea has tested the Hwasong-17 and Hwasong-18 ICBMs, with estimated ranges exceeding 13,000 to 15,000 kilometers — sufficient to reach any point in the continental United States [8]. The Hwasong-19, tested in October 2024, was reportedly equipped with what North Korea described as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), though analysts noted the system likely carries only two warheads on the same trajectory rather than true independently guided MIRVs [8].

A critical gap remains: the U.S. military has stated it has not seen demonstrable evidence that North Korea has successfully tested a reentry vehicle capable of surviving atmospheric reentry — the final technical hurdle for a functional ICBM [9]. North Korea is also pursuing hypersonic glide vehicles, with a January 2025 test of an upgraded Hwasong-16 intermediate-range ballistic missile fitted with a wedge-shaped hypersonic payload [5]. Solid-fuel technology, which allows faster launch preparation and reduces vulnerability to preemptive strikes, is another active development track [8].

Kim Jong Un stated in January 2021 that North Korea could "miniaturize, lighten, and standardize nuclear weapons and make them tactical ones" [9]. North Korea has displayed what appeared to be a 5-kiloton warhead suitable for short-range systems, though independent verification of miniaturization claims remains impossible [9].

The Sanctions Architecture: Built, Weakened, Dismantled

The UN Security Council passed a series of escalating resolutions against North Korea's weapons programs beginning with Resolution 1718 in 2006. Subsequent resolutions — 1874 (2009), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016), 2371 (2017), 2375 (2017), and 2397 (2017) — progressively banned weapons exports, capped coal and oil imports, restricted overseas labor, and froze assets [10].

For years, enforcement was imperfect but functional. A Panel of Experts, established under Resolution 1874, monitored compliance and documented sanctions evasion, including falsified shipping documents, covert ship-to-ship cargo transfers, and front companies operating in third countries [11].

That architecture began to fracture in May 2022, when China and Russia vetoed a draft resolution to strengthen sanctions — the first veto on a North Korea resolution in 64 years [12]. Then, in March 2024, Russia vetoed the renewal of the Panel of Experts itself, effectively dismantling the only independent body tasked with monitoring sanctions compliance [13]. China abstained rather than joining the veto but did not block it [13].

Russia argued that the sanctions regime "no longer reflects realities on the ground" and imposed an undue burden on North Korea's civilian population [13]. Critics noted the timing: Pyongyang had become a major supplier of munitions for Moscow's war in Ukraine, and the Panel of Experts was documenting exactly the kind of transfers Russia wanted to keep quiet [14].

Since the panel's dissolution, no formal UN body monitors whether member states are complying with existing North Korea sanctions. The resolutions remain technically in force, but enforcement is now purely voluntary.

The Cost of Missiles — and Who Pays

Estimating North Korea's military spending requires working with fragmentary data. The country's GDP is estimated at $30 billion to $40 billion, and defense spending is believed to consume between 20% and 25% of that total — roughly $6 billion to $10 billion annually [15]. Missile testing alone cost an estimated $650 million in 2022, or approximately 2% of GDP, according to a Nikkei Asia analysis [16].

Source: U.S. State Dept / RAND / CNBC estimates

Data as of May 26, 2026CSV

By comparison, South Korea spends roughly 2.8% of GDP on defense, the United States about 3.4%, and Japan approximately 1.6% — though Japan has committed to doubling that figure to 2% by 2027 [17]. North Korea's defense burden as a share of national output dwarfs every major military power.

The question of whether missile spending directly displaces humanitarian resources is contested among analysts. North Korea's food system chronically falls short of meeting the population's needs: approximately 12 million people — roughly half the population — remain undernourished, according to humanitarian organizations [18]. Human Rights Watch reported in February 2026 that hunger intensified across several regions, driven by low incomes, rising food prices, and increased restrictions on market activity [19].

Some analysts argue that the military budget and the civilian economy operate as structurally separate systems, with the military drawing on dedicated supply chains and foreign currency reserves that would not otherwise flow to food production [20]. Others counter that in an economy as small and resource-constrained as North Korea's, every dollar directed to missile production is a dollar unavailable for agricultural inputs, fertilizer imports, or infrastructure [18]. The truth likely lies in between: while the budgets have distinct institutional channels, they compete for the same finite pool of national resources, foreign exchange, and labor.

The Russia Factor: From Patron to Partner

The deepening military relationship between North Korea and Russia has transformed the strategic calculus. According to Seoul's Defense Intelligence Agency, North Korea has delivered approximately 33,000 shipping containers to Russia, containing an estimated 15 million or more 152mm artillery shells, 220 artillery pieces, and hundreds of ballistic missiles [21]. Ukraine's military intelligence chief stated in January 2025 that Pyongyang was expected to deliver 150 Hwasong-11 missiles to Russia in 2025, on top of 148 already supplied in 2024 [21].

North Korea has also deployed between 14,000 and 15,000 soldiers to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine since the fall of 2024, with reports in mid-2025 that up to 30,000 additional troops were being prepared [22].

The exchange is not one-directional. U.S. Forces Korea Commander General Xavier Brunson stated in April 2025 that "Russia is expanding sharing of space, nuclear, and missile-applicable technology, expertise, and materials to the DPRK," warning that this cooperation "will enable advancements of DPRK's weapons of mass destruction program across the next three to five years" [22]. In June 2025, North Korea began construction of its largest-ever military manufacturing facility near Huichon, adjacent to an existing defense industrial site, in what analysts described as confirmation of the institutional nature of the alliance [21].

This partnership has practical consequences for sanctions enforcement. Russia, as a permanent Security Council member with veto power, has blocked every effort to strengthen or even monitor the existing sanctions regime. China, while less overtly supportive of North Korea's weapons program, has declined to confront Russia on the issue and has its own documented record of incomplete sanctions compliance [11].

Allied Defenses: Stronger, but Facing a Moving Target

South Korea and Japan have expanded their missile defense capabilities over the past decade, though the systems face inherent limitations against the evolving North Korean threat.

South Korea hosts one U.S. THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) battery, deployed in 2017 over strong Chinese objections, though reports in 2026 indicated the U.S. was considering relocating it to the Middle East due to operational needs elsewhere [23]. South Korea has also upgraded its eight Patriot batteries from PAC-2 to PAC-3 configuration and acquired PAC-3 MSE interceptors capable of engaging ballistic missiles at altitudes up to 40 kilometers [23].

Japan operates four Kongo-class Aegis destroyers equipped with SM-3 Block IA interceptors for midcourse defense, and is modernizing to deploy SM-3 Block IIA interceptors on four additional BMD-capable destroyers [23]. Japan's ground-based Patriot systems have also been upgraded to fire MSE interceptors [17].

In controlled testing, the PAC-3 system has demonstrated intercept success rates exceeding 85% [24]. THAAD, after failing its first six intercept tests in the 1990s, has since achieved a strong test record [24]. However, test conditions rarely replicate the full complexity of a real attack — multiple simultaneous launches, decoys, and maneuvering warheads. Against a salvo of North Korean short-range missiles targeting South Korean cities, the mathematical challenge of intercepting every incoming warhead remains formidable, and no missile defense system claims a 100% success rate in operational conditions.

The Diplomacy Deficit

The last substantive U.S.-North Korea diplomatic engagement was the failed Hanoi summit in February 2019. Since then, multiple administrations have extended offers that Pyongyang has declined or ignored.

The Biden Administration offered to meet "without preconditions" and extended unconditional humanitarian assistance [25]. Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol pledged large-scale economic assistance if North Korea "embarks on a genuine and substantive process for denuclearization" [25]. North Korea rejected both, with Kim Jong Un stating repeatedly that Washington must drop its demand for denuclearization before talks can resume [25].

Trump, upon returning to office, expressed willingness to engage personally with Kim, but North Korea appeared to reject the overture by late 2025 [26]. A February 2026 analysis by 38 North described the remaining diplomatic space as an "ember" rather than a flame, noting that realistic negotiations would likely narrow to a freeze on nuclear and missile capabilities linked to limited sanctions relief — far short of the complete denuclearization that remains official U.S. policy [27].

Some analysts argue that Western policy has inadvertently given Pyongyang rational incentives to continue testing. The logic: North Korea's nuclear and missile capabilities are its primary bargaining chips, and every successful test increases their perceived value at any future negotiating table. By maintaining a maximalist demand (complete denuclearization) while offering relatively modest incentives in return, the U.S. and its allies have structured a negotiation in which North Korea's best short-term strategy is to keep building [27]. Critics of this view counter that North Korea has shown no genuine willingness to negotiate away its nuclear program under any terms, and that lowering the bar would simply reward proliferation.

The Five-Year Horizon: What Comes Next

If the current trajectory holds — continued testing, Russian technology transfer, no diplomatic engagement, and a defunct sanctions monitoring regime — defense analysts have identified several thresholds that could force fundamental shifts in U.S. strategy.

The first is demonstrated ICBM reentry vehicle capability. Once North Korea proves it can deliver a nuclear warhead to the U.S. mainland under realistic conditions, the credibility of American extended deterrence — the promise to defend Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons if necessary — faces its most direct test [28].

The second is verified MIRV technology. A single ICBM carrying multiple warheads complicates missile defense mathematics and could overwhelm the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system protecting the U.S. homeland [8].

The third is the scale of the North Korea-Russia technology transfer. General Brunson's warning about WMD program advancements "across the next three to five years" suggests the U.S. military believes qualitative leaps — not just incremental improvements — are plausible in the near term [22].

These thresholds feed directly into the growing debate over tactical nuclear weapons redeployment. A 2025 Asan Institute poll found 76.2% of South Koreans support acquiring an indigenous nuclear weapons capability, with 66.3% favoring the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula [29]. In Japan, ideas about bilateral nuclear sharing and the reintroduction of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are being "tentatively floated" in policy circles, according to the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network [30]. A November 2025 article in Foreign Policy made "The Case for Why Japan Needs Nuclear Weapons" [31].

The 2026 National Defense Strategy added fuel to these discussions by stating that allies and partners would "take primary responsibility" for their own defense with "critical but more limited U.S. support" — language that some analysts in Seoul and Tokyo interpreted as a weakening of the extended deterrence commitment [28].

No Easy Answers

The May 26 launch from Jongju was, in isolation, a minor event — short-range weapons fired into empty water. But it occurred within a strategic environment that has shifted decisively in North Korea's favor over the past several years. The sanctions regime is hollowed out. The diplomatic channel is dormant. Russia is actively assisting North Korea's military modernization. And the domestic political consensus in both South Korea and Japan is moving toward nuclear options that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

The 80-kilometer flight of a close-range ballistic missile matters less than the trajectory it represents: a country that has conducted more missile tests in the past 14 years than most nations attempt in a century, and a set of international institutions that have proven unable to stop it.