I argue that the choice of North Korean nuclear strategy turns on the role of China as a patron and protector for Pyongyang. If North Korea views China as a reliable patron, albeit one that requires the periodic threat of nuclear breakout to mobilize, then its nuclear arsenal can remain limited and recessed. If not, then North Korea might move toward an alternative nuclear strategy: an aggressive first-use posture—including developing short-range and tactical nuclear weapons—to deter the conventional and nuclear superiority of the United States and South Korea, which North Korea would be facing alone. This is a scary alternative, and suggests that the United States has an interest in encouraging China to continue playing the role of North Korea's patron, in order to keep Pyongyang's nuclear posture and strategy limited.

Contrary to much of the conventional wisdom on Iran, my theory suggests that a potentially nuclear Iran would most likely adopt a relatively recessed assured retaliation posture to assert maximal centralized control over its nuclear assets. For management and civil-military reasons, Iran is unlikely to develop or predelegate tactical nuclear weapons, and is more likely to rely on a recessed strategic force to deter strictly nuclear use and coercion against it. In other words, a nuclear Iran is more likely to look like India or China, rather than Pakistan.