The North Korean regime is doing whatever it can to survive, according to a new Pentagon assessment which predicts that, despite international efforts, Pyongyang's leadership will continue to build more nuclear weapons and asymmetric warfare capabilities.

In its first annual report to Congress, the Pentagon said North Korea sees that its military power is falling behind that of its neighbors -- South Korea, Japan, and China. Instead of trying to match those capabilities, however, it has chosen to pursue nukes and small-war strategies.

But the regime may feel more threatened by its own people.

"The regime's greatest security concern is opposition from within," the Pentagon told Congress in the report. The regime's fear of external threats is that they will foster internal revolt. As such, the North Korean military is as involved in maintaining oppressive "internal security" as it is in threatening South Korea or the United States.

The Pentagon believes the North Korean military's provocations are calculated to avoid triggering a full-scale counterattack. But DOD is worried about "miscalculation that could spiral into a larger conflict."

"Although North Korea is unlikely to attack on a scale that it assesses would risk the survival of its government by inviting overwhelming counterattacks by the ROK or the United States, we do not know how North Korea calculates this threshold of behavior."

If war happens, the Pentagon would face an aged military.

"The KPA fields primarily legacy equipment, either produced in, or based on designs of, the Soviet Union and China, dating back to the 1950s, 60s and 70s," said the report, though last year's NorthKorean military parade revealed some new tanks, artillery, and infantry hardware. 

The North Korean air force has not purchased new fighters since a 1999 buy of MiG-21s. It has more than 1,000 planes, but its most capable are Soviet-era MiG-29s. The regime's naval forces are barely worth a mention, though the Pentagon said a mini-submarine was able to sink the South Korean ship Cheonan. 

The one threat the Pentagon shows concern over: ballistic missiles and the progress toward nuclear-tipped ICBMs. 

"North Korea will move closer to this goal, as well as increase the threat it poses to U.S. forces and Allies in the region, if it continues testing and devoting scarce regime resources to these programs."

Despite an active threat of nuclear war in East Asia, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific said on Tuesday that he has not talked to his Chinese military counterparts during the ongoing North Korean standoff.

The revelation, made during Tuesday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, exposes just how broken the U.S.-China military relationship remains despite the Obama administration’s efforts to build stronger ties with Beijing dating to 2009.

Relations between the U.S. military and China’s People’s Liberation Army have thawed in recent years. But U.S. defense leaders and commanders are frustrated that China is not doing more to help calm Pyongyang.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked U.S. Pacific Command’s Adm. Samuel Locklear if he thought the same way.

“I think that they could do more,” the four-star commander replied.

Then Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked, “Have you had any conversations with your military counterparts in China in the last couple of weeks?” Locklear, the top commander in Asia, replied,  “I have not.”

It was not until much later in the hearing that Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, revived the issue, saying Locklear’s answer “troubled me.”

“It seems to me that we need to be, I would think, clearer with China as to what our expectations are because this is a danger to them,” Ayotte said. “And, also, if there is a provocation between North and South Korea and we are required to engage, or North Korea engages us, that is to the detriment of China's security, as well.”

“So I'm wondering why you haven't had those conversations.”

Locklear, who does not have a direct counterpart in the PLA chain-of-command, noted that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was having conversations with China on behalf of the Pentagon. Hagel discussed North Korea with Chinese Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan on April 2. Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey spoke in early March with Gen. Fang Fenghui, chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army.  

“I believe that, over time, we'll progress to a state where the PACOM commander can talk to the chief of defense or the chairman can talk there in a real time. We're not there yet.”

Indeed, even the top of the chain is barely talking.

“We're not aware of any recent mil-to-mil contacts with China on DPRK,” said Col. David Lapan, spokesman for Chairman Dempsey. Dempsey is scheduled to visit China later this month.

Hagel’s team also said they knew of no other “high-level interaction” on North Korea. Col. Cathy Wilkinson, Defense Department spokeswoman, said “routine” military coordination has continued “through diplomatic channels.”

Locklear later said he has a hotline with Beijing for crises but not the kind of military-to-military relationships the U.S. enjoys with China’s neighbors.

“But as I've said to my Chinese counterparts, we need to get better at this, because I don't have the same relationship I have with maybe the chief of defense of Japan or of Korea or of the Philippines, where we understand each other. We meet routinely. We talk through security issues. And we need to move that forward with our relationship with China,” he said.

“It's nice to have relationships before the crisis,” replied Sen. Angus King, I-Maine.

Gen. James Thurman, U.S. Forces Korea commander, was supposed to testify alongside Locklear about the North Korea situation, but he skipped the trip to Washington in order to stay on duty in South Korea.

Levin, whose question put Locklear on the hot seat, closed the hearing by throwing the admiral a lifeline and asking if he could try to reach out and touch the Chinese.

“It could add a very important element if this military- to-military communication occurred with your Chinese counterpart,” Levin said.

“Yes, sir.”

“So that's something you could take on?”

“I will explore it. Yes, sir.”

So, it’s the Navy’s fault that the U.S.-North Korea spat has gone so far?

That’s the apparent message from senior administration officials who, according to the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, said that they had long planned to send B-52s, B-2 stealth bombers, and F-22 fighters to the Korean Peninsula as part of preplanned wargames with South Korea, but that they had not planned the recent deployment of Navy destroyers.

Last weekend, the U.S. ordered two guided-missile destroyers to the Western Pacific -- the U.S.S. John S. McCain and the U.S.S. Decatur -- to provide additional defense against North Korean ballistic missiles. That move represents an operational escalation of U.S. forces in the region, in contrast to the symbolic show of force provided by the fighters and bombers, which conducted only flyby passes and bombing practice (or, in the case of the F-22, just sat on the ground).

But the destroyer deployment never was intended to be publicized in the same way. Kim Jong Un’s regime has responded to each U.S. move with increasingly dangerous threats, and U.S. officials say they are now trying to tone down the muscular posturing. That Navy officials publicly confirmed the destroyer deployment to reporters did not help, U.S. officials told the Journal.

What’s unclear from that account, however, is whether Pentagon officials simply did not know the destroyer deployments were to be kept under wraps, or whether the White House was actually unaware of the deployment orders until the ship movements were made public.

“We’re not discussing our interagency deliberations,” said Caitlin Haydn, National Security Council (NSC) spokeswoman, in an email.

A senior defense official, however, told the E-Ring, "There was no White House secrecy order."

According to several U.S. officials, the decision to task two destroyers on a ballistic missile defense mission specific to North Korea went through the usual chain of command.

Pacific Command’s Adm. Samuel Locklear requested additional ballistic missile defenses in the Western Pacific. That decision was made in conjunction with Northern Command’s Gen. Chuck Jacoby. Those two combatant commanders are responsible for determining the military forces required for ballistic missile defense of U.S. allies in Asia and the homeland, respectively. Their request was given to the Joint Staff, at the Pentagon. The Joint Staff then asked the Navy what assets were available to meet the mission. The Navy identified the Decatur and the McCain, which Locklear then ordered to their positions. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel did not give the order.

"The secretary did not sign deployment orders," a senior defense official said. The final order was given by the PACOM commander.

Ship movements normally do not require approval of the president or the defense secretary. Of course, these deployments were not made under normal circumstances. Hagel was apprised of the move, but it is unclear whether the White House knew about the deployment in advance. Hayden, NSC spokeswoman, declined to say.

"But there clearly was a disconnect with the Navy in making that move public," said a separate U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Reporters routinely ask defense and military officials if there have been extraordinary changes in military assets and alert levels, such as ship deployments, aircraft positioning, or troop movements specific to various threats that emerge. Pentagon officials field that question daily during times of crisis like the current North Korean situation.

Until this weekend, there were no public notices or media reports of any changes to the U.S. force posture, though there were already U.S. ships forward deployed in the region that are capable of defending against ballistic missile attacks.

The U.S.S. John S. McCain was told to steam from port in Japan -- where it had been resting following two weeks of drills in March that were part of the U.S.-South Korean "Foal Eagle" exercise -- specifically to provide additional defense against North Korean ballistic missiles. Also, the U.S.S. Decatur, which was on its way home from the Persian Gulf to San Diego, was told to hold in place before it crossed the Pacific, in a separate location from the McCain.

U.S. and defense officials declined to provide the specific location of either ship, citing operational security.

On Thursday, a third destroyer, the U.S.S. Fitzgerald, reached the U.S.S. Decatur’s location and has relieved that ship, which is now continuing its journey home to California, the E-Ring has confirmed.

Administration officials now say publicly they want to cool things off with North Korea, and quickly. Defense Secretary Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have placed phone calls to their Chinese counterparts in the past two days seeking a diplomatic resolve.

“This does not need to get hotter,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Thursday.

But the U.S. has shown no sign of pulling back its newly deployed defensive measures, including the destroyers. Last December, when North Korean tested a long-range rocket and put an object into space, ship deployments out of Japan for ballistic missile defense duty lasted for weeks.

Contrary to the claim of softer rhetoric, the Pentagon announced on Wednesday it was deploying the controversial THAAD anti-ballistic missile system to Guam as a precautionary measure against the North Korean missile threat. That deployment required Hagel's authorization.

Moreover, the U.S. is pressing on with plans to continue joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises on the Korean Peninsula into April.

“We have two events that will be closely managed and controlled,” Col. Amy Hannah, U.S. Forces Korea spokeswoman tells the E-Ring. “The two main events are a combined logistics over the shore exercise and a Marine amphibious landing.”

No requests to change those plans have come up the chain of command, according to the U.S. official.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey said their decision to commit $1 billion for additional ballistic missile defenses in Alaska is an appropriate response to North Korea’s nuclear threats and the regime’s potential long-range missile capabilities in the future.

“We don’t have any choice,” Hagel said, “in defending this country but to anticipate worst-case scenarios. We do know the North Koreans have missile capability. We know that they have significant capability.”

Since Hagel announced the Defense Department’s plan to deploy additional ground-based interceptors (GBIs) by 2017, critics outside the Pentagon have argued that President Barack Obama’s national security team was duped by Kim Jong Un’s regime into responding to “fake missiles.”

Publicly, observers are concerned with what appeared to be mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) North Korea showed off last year, as well as a multi-phase rocket that put an object into orbit last year. But critics have pointed out the purported North Korean ICBMs, or KN-08, have yet to pass flight tests, much less qualify as a threat to the American homeland.

Hagel rejected such criticism “about our not-well-thought out strategy” flatly.

“As we think through long-term threats, we have to plan sure for short-term, but also for long-term,” Hagel argued in a Pentagon press briefing on Thursday. “And the announcement that was made a couple of weeks ago wasn’t some knee-jerk reaction to the young leader’s threats in North Korea.”

“You only need to be wrong once,” Hagel continued, “and I don’t know what president, or what chairman, or what secretary of defense wants to be wrong once when it comes to nuclear threats.”

“I would take issue with [the] analysis,” Hagel said, defensively. “There was an awful lot of thought that went into this, and strategic thinking.”

Gen. Dempsey added that the decision to increase GBIs at Fort Greely, in Alaska, is a specific response to North Korea that aligns with his desire to keep ahead of technological threats to the homeland.

The interceptors are just one of several of the Pentagon’s moves that North Korea has called provocative. This week, two B-2 stealth bombers flew from the United States over South Korea, following similar over-flights by American B-52s on March 8, during what DOD offiicals say are ongoing military exercises. Both aircraft are capable of delivering nuclear bombs.

“We, the United States and South Korea have not been involved in provocating [sic] anything,” Hagel argued. “We, the United States, the South Koreans, all of the nations in that region of the world are committed to a pathway to peace,” Hagel said, “and the North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction.”

The new secretary then fired back at Pyongyang with some of his strongest rhetoric to date.

“We will unequivocally defend, and we are unequivocally committed to that alliance with South Korea, as well as our other allies in that region of the world. And we will be prepared -- we have to be prepared -- to deal with any eventuality there.”

To that end, the United States and South Korea signed a counterattack plan last Friday, which Dempsey said was the result of a two-year deliberation that occurred because South Korea had indicated “they are no longer willing to be provoked.”

Three years ago this week, Seoul was pushed to the brink after North Korea sunk the naval ship Cheonan, killing at least 40 sailors on board. Later in 2010, North Korean artillery struck Yeonpyeong island, killing two Marines and two civilians and sparking some South Koreans to demand retaliation.

At the time, top U.S. defense officials worried that South Korea would be unable to weather further attacks without delivering a military response, which in turn could have spiraled into a catastrophic conflict on the peninsula, potentially drawing in the United States. This new counter-provocation plan, Dempsey said, was crafted to allow the Pentagon to better understand South Korea’s intentions, if directly attacked again.

Dempsey said the Pentagon has spotted North Korean military movements, including artillery, but they are consistent with annual exercises. All eyes, now, are on the regime’s anointed leader, Kim.

“We have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new young leader has taken so far, since he’s come to power,” Hagel said, batting away a question of whether Kim or the military actually is in charge in Pyongyang. “He’s the leader. I mean, he’s the leader of North Korea.”

Did North Korea just restart the Korean War?

Not exactly, say Pentagon officials, who argue that, as with the rest of Pyongyang's threats, saying it is so does not necessarily make it so.

North Korea continued its recent barrage of incendiary rhetoric on Monday by claiming it was nullifying the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.

The statement prompted yet another round of deflective statements from Pentagon officials in Washington hoping to muffle drumbeats of war from Pyongyang.

“As a legal matter, no party to the armistice can unilaterally terminate or alter the terms of the Armistice Agreement,” Pentagon press secretary George Little said on Friday, while traveling to Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

North Korea has threatened to void the armistice before, but this time said outright the agreement was nullified. North Korea’s comments seemed timed to two events: the start of “Key Resolve,” a U.S.-South Korean annual military exercise, and the first cabinet meeting of South Korea’s new president, Park Geun-hye.

According to published reports, North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency broadcast its claim the armistice was void, and would cut off the famous hotline between the north and south. North Korea did not pick up the hotline phone on Monday morning's daily test, South Korean officials said.

“North Korea's apparent cut-off of communication links at Panmunjom, coupled with its provocative rhetoric, is not constructive to ensuring peace and stability on the Peninsula,” said Lt Col. Cathy Wilkinson, a spokeswoman at the Pentagon, on Monday. Wilkinson said the north has refused to pick up the phone before.

As for the military exercises, she said, “Key Resolve and Foal Eagle are annual training events designed to increase readiness to defend the Republic of Korea, protect the region, and maintain stability on the Korean Peninsula. These exercises occur around the same time every year, and are a clear demonstration of the U.S. commitment to the alliance.”

The North Korean satellite launched last week to global alarm is already failing and falling from orbit, according to satellite trackers using publicly available military data and software to follow the craft.

The alarm bells sounded in the White House, National Security Council and Pentagon were not so much for Kwangmyongsong 3-2, the satellite, but the massive rocket with two booster stages that threw it into space. That rocket launch, the U.S. fears, lays the groundwork for a potential intercontinental ballistic missile that could someday carry a nuclear warhead, instead of a satellite, all the way to California.

A Pentagon official told the E-Ring the Defense Department would not comment about the status of the satellite, because they do not comment on “intelligence matters.”

But a U.S. official tells us, “We haven't completed our final assessment, but it's a good chance whatever they put up there is deaf, blind, and mute.”

North Korea Tech, a website, explains why they know the craft is failing, based on data released by North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) here.

You can follow the satellite zooming across the Google map via this website.

Key Senate Republicans on Thursday threw their support behind a controversial proposal to develop an East Coast missile defense site in the U.S. to defend against Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles that do not yet exist.
 
During ongoing floor debate of the Senate’s fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, New Hampshire’s Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said she endorsed language in the House-passed bill authorizing the Pentagon to spend $100 million to study locations in the northeast United States for ICMB missile defenses.  That provision was a surprise addition when the House bill emerged from the House Armed Services Committee and survived floor debate.
 
Ayotte introduced an amendment with similar language and immediately withdrew it before a vote, instead offering her verbal support for the House bill. Ayotte argued Iran could develop a nuclear-tipped, long-range missile that could reach the United States. U.S. defenses currently would not allow for a defensive knock-down and counterattack, she argued.
 
“I think this is deeply troubling and we should be developing that capacity.”
 
Ayotte said the National Research Council recommended an additional ballistic missile site in the Northeast. “particularly against Iranian ICBM threats,s hould they emerg.” That report, however, was funded by the Missile Defense Agency and concluded the U.S. should not try to invest in defenses that attempt to strike missiles as they launch, rather ones that would have better luck with set up back on U.S. soil to catch missiles as they’re further in flight.
 
Ayotte also argued “some analysts” believe Iran “could develop that capacity” of long-range missiles by 2015. “I can’t imagine why we wouldn’t want to be in a position to make sure that the east coast of our country would be as protected as the West coast,” Ayotte said, specifically of Iran, which she argued was trying to acquire a nuclear weapon.
 
Intelligence officials have testified this year that they believe Iran has not yet decided to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.
 
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) backed Ayotte but spoke more to the U.S. inability to defend against an “accidental” launch of Chinese or Russian ICBMs that already can reach the East Coast.
 
“Wars can be started almost by accident and the best protection against that is a missile defense system that ensures no harm isdone,” Kyl said. “We have a moral responsibility and it makes strategic sense…because of the critical vulnerability that we have right now.”
 
Senate debate on the defense authorization bill is expected to continue for two more days.