Capsized Ambitions: Inside North Korea's Destroyer Failure
On May 21, 2025, North Korea's ambitious naval modernization suffered a significant setback when its second 5,000-ton Choe Hyon-class destroyer was severely damaged during a failed launch at the Chongjin Shipyard. The incident, witnessed by leader Kim Jong Un, occurred as the vessel toppled sideways due to a malfunctioning cradle and balance issues, crushing parts of its hull.
Kim condemned the mishap as a "serious accident and criminal act," attributing it to negligence and unscientific practices by military and shipyard officials. This rare public admission of failure underscores the challenges North Korea faces in advancing its naval capabilities. Despite the setback, the regime continues to pursue its goal of enhancing maritime strength, including the development of nuclear-powered submarines and advanced warships.
Base Case Scenario – 60% Likelihood
North Korea contains the fallout from the failed destroyer launch by publicly punishing those responsible and pressing ahead with a revised naval timeline. Kim Jong Un uses the incident to reinforce internal discipline, while shifting focus to smaller, more proven missile and submarine programs. The regime continues to demonstrate military strength through controlled missile tests, as it did shortly after the failure, avoiding further high-profile setbacks. Meanwhile, the second destroyer’s restoration continues into late 2025, missing the June deadline but salvaging long-term goals.
This outcome aligns with past North Korean behavior: quick blame assignment, tight internal control, and persistence with strategic military objectives despite operational failures. The immediate cruise missile tests demonstrate the regime's resilience and intent to project strength, suggesting this is more a tactical hiccup than a strategic collapse.
Upside Scenario – 25%
The failed launch serves as a catalyst for overdue reforms in North Korea’s military-industrial complex. Kim Jong Un, recognizing structural weaknesses, initiates modernization in project management and naval engineering practices. The regime scales down ambitions in favor of a modular naval strategy focused on rapid deployment and mobility—such as missile corvettes and submarines. Diplomatic channels open indirectly (possibly via China or Russia) offering limited technical support under the radar, improving reliability in future launches.
This optimistic scenario is grounded in the notion that Pyongyang, while autocratic, has adapted in the past under pressure (e.g., missile miniaturization and COVID-era economic shifts). With mounting evidence of resource overextension, rational actors within the regime may push for more sustainable military innovation paths—especially with potential informal foreign assistance available.
Downside Scenario – 15%
The failure triggers a backlash within North Korea’s military establishment, prompting purges that cripple morale and delay multiple defense projects. In response to perceived humiliation, Kim Jong Un orders a high-risk show of force—possibly another ICBM test or provocative naval deployment—escalating regional tensions. Economic strain from the destroyed vessel and retaliatory sanctions limits material availability, stalling broader modernization efforts. Domestic propaganda pivots to aggressive nationalism to compensate for internal dissatisfaction.
North Korea has a history of overcorrecting with high-profile provocations when prestige is at risk. A failed launch witnessed by Kim Jong Un could lead to extreme internal repercussions and compensatory external belligerence. If these actions provoke international sanctions or disrupt fragile supply chains, broader defense progress may stagnate, compounding the failure's effects.
