© Copyright 2022 Military.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The U.S. military is experiencing shortcomings with Microsoft’s customized mixed reality headset, according to reports by Bloomberg and Insider.

Internal military evaluations of system field tests this year concluded that soldiers suffered from headaches, nausea, and eyestrain, according to the reports. More than 80% of users with discomfort had symptoms less than three hours after using the headset, called the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), according to Bloomberg.

A summary of the field exercise, produced by the Pentagon’s testing office, said soldiers suffered “mission-affecting physical impairments.”

The U.S. Army awarded Microsoft a contract last year worth up to $21.88 billion over 10 years to produce a headset with augmented capabilities based on the tech giant’s HoloLens technology.

“Our close collaboration with the Army has enabled us to quickly build and iterate on the IVAS to develop a transformational platform that will deliver enhanced soldier safety and effectiveness,” said a Microsoft spokesperson. “We are moving forward with the production and delivery of the initial set of HoloLens-based devices to fulfill our commitment to bring this next generation technology to the US Army.” 

The military headset leverages existing high-resolution night, thermal, and soldier-borne sensors integrated into a unified Heads Up Display. It is designed to combine augmented reality and machine learning to enable a life-like mixed reality training environment.

Despite the drawbacks, the lenses also “enhanced navigation and coordination of unit movements,” according to the Pentagon report.

The device is expected to be released to soldiers in 2023, two years later than planned earlier, as it undergoes further rounds of testing and improvement.  

NATO drills that start next week aim to test the alliance's nuclear deterrent capabilities amid threats over what Vladimir Putin might do next in his faltering invasion of Ukraine.

The alliance said that the "Steadfast Noon" exercise starting on Monday and running until October 30 "is a routine, recurring training activity and it is not linked to any current world events."

However, it comes as concerns grow that Putin might resort to nuclear weapons following losses in his invasion in which his forces have had to retreat.

The exercise will involve 14 alliance members and up to 60 aircraft, including fourth and fifth-generation fighter jets, as well as surveillance and tanker aircraft.

Also taking part will be U.S. B-52 long-range bombers from Minot Air Base in North Dakota. There will be training flights over Belgium, which is hosting the exercise, as well as over the North Sea and the United Kingdom. No live weapons will be used.

A NATO spokesperson told Newsweek in a statement there would be training flights over Western Europe and the North Sea and that the core exercise is well over 1,000 km (660 miles) from Russia's border.

The aim of the exercise was to remain "safe, secure and effective" and would entail "a range of realistic and simulated events which can be found in a conflict," the spokesperson said.

Following Ukraine's counteroffensive that led to the recapture of territories in the east and in the south of the country over the past few weeks, Russia announced the illegal annexation of four areas.

Putin has made veiled references to the potential use of nuclear weapons, stating that Moscow would protect its territory through "all means available."

The alliance's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, said Thursday that the chance NATO might have to use nuclear weapons is "extremely remote," and that Russia would face "severe consequences" if it did use them.

Katarzyna Zysk, international relations professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies, said Steadfast Noon had been well planned in advance so "this is not a surprise to Russia." Thus, it would not reveal any "unusual operating patterns" from the alliance.

Zysk told Newsweek that the Norwegian-led Cold Response exercises in March and April, soon after the start of the war, had a "deterrent factor" and that would be behind the logic of proceeding with the exercise next week.

"It's about maintaining credibility of the alliance and the credibility of deterrence and defense," she said.

While President Biden's Secretary of the Army has defended its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs this week as "important," several current and former members of the U.S. military, who have put their lives on the line to ensure America's security and defend its freedoms, are sounding the alarm over what they call a culture putting "wokeness" before training and combat effectiveness.

Those service members, some of whom served with Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, are blaming that culture for its recruiting challenges, which have risen to a level unseen since it was transitioned to an all-volunteer force.

"The military is extremely woke," one service member told Fox News Digitial recently.

"I do perceive the Army leadership as woke, and probably the lower enlisted (they have been indoctrinated in school)," another service member said. "Equity-diversity is another way to divide and control the masses. It does nothing for the warfighter."

"We get criticized, frankly, sometimes for being ‘woke,'" Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said at a Monday discussion with other military leaders on national security and the branch’s modernization efforts. "I'm not sure what ‘woke’ means. I think ‘woke’ means a lot of different things to different people."

She continued, "But, first of all, if ‘woke’ means we are not focused on warfighting, we are not focused on readiness, that doesn’t reflect what I see at installations all around the country or overseas when I go and visit."

ARMY MISSES RECRUITING GOALS WHILE OTHER BRANCHES FALL BEHIND FOR NEXT YEAR

The service members, who remained anonymous so they could speak freely, almost universally shared a similar sentiment, with many noting that senior members who speak out on the issue risk their careers or retirement pensions.

"Merely questioning the goals or methods used to promote ‘Equity & Diversity’ is punished and that punishment is swift, harsh, and public," one service member said.

BIDEN'S ARMY SECRETARY RESPONDS TO ‘WOKE’ CRITICISMS, SAYS DEI PROGRAMS ‘IMPORTANT’

"I 100% believe the military is woke. I see daily minorities, overweight people and women not adhering to military standards," another said. "Nobody corrects them due to the fear of being fired and labeled a racist or a sexist."

"I do think we do have a wide range of soldiers in our Army, and we've got to make them all feel included," Wormuth said Monday. "And that’s why a lot of our diversity, equity and inclusion programs are important."

Another service member pointed to the military's COVID-19 policies, noting the vaccine mandate has forced many members in good standing into difficult decisions.

LAWMAKERS SOUND ALARM OVER U.S. MILITARY RECRUITMENT CRISIS: ‘WHY WOULD I JOIN?’

"Most of us who serve did so because we came from military families. Patriotism and American values are no longer appreciated or expected," one service member said. "Troops themselves are largely treated as expendable and they don't even pretend otherwise. Spending 15+ years in the military during wartime with multiple deployments risking their lives only to be tossed out like garbage. Losing the retirement they have worked years to earn because they didn't want to take an experimental vaccine for an illness that was mild for fit and healthy people."

The military has been facing a recruiting crisis, with the Army failing to meet its recruiting goals in 2022 and the Marines, Air Force and Navy all dipping deep into their pools of delayed entry program candidates to scratch by this year, putting them well behind the pace for meeting next year's goals.

"In the Army's most challenging recruiting year since the start of the all-volunteer force, we will only achieve 75% of our fiscal year '22 recruiting goal," Wormuth said in a statement after the numbers were publicly released.

While the military has faced several challenges in latest years, including restrictions to entering schools brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and a tight jobs market, many others have pinned the blame for the issue on a culture becoming less focused on winning the nation's wars.

"How can we ask young men and women who have decided to risk their lives for America, even die for America, to affirm that our country is inherently racist?" former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote for Fox News last month. "How can we ask them to view their brothers and sisters in arms through the narrow prisms of race or gender? The clear and obvious answer is that we cannot – not without putting their lives at risk on the battlefield. A woke military is a weak military. Unfortunately, woke and weak are exactly what our military is becoming under Biden’s leadership."

AMERICA’S MILITARY AND OUR COUNTRY WON’T SURVIVE IF WOKEISM CONTINUES TO RULE

Many of the service members reached by Fox News Digital expressed similar concerns, with some saying they would not encourage their children to join the military.

"I would not have my children join for the same reason they are in private schools vs. public schools," one service member said.

"I couldn’t allow my kids to join the military, and risk having them serve under commanders like I saw on deployments," another service member said, citing the failures of leadership witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"They’d be better off serving for one of our allies who are focused on defending their country and will come to our aid when our woke and unready force embarrasses itself," another said.

"Why would I have my kids join an institution who works every day to call them evil and diminish the contributions of their ancestors," said another.

AIR FORCE ACADEMY PROMOTES FELLOWSHIP THAT BANS ‘CISGENDER' MEN: ‘THIS PROGRAM ISN’T FOR YOU’

Service members also complained of an overly-political culture among the military's leadership, arguing it has hindered their ability to prepare the country for conflict.

"The DOD is absolutely politicized. No matter what party is in power. Generals have basically become politicians, and ‘yes men’ and will conform to whatever party is in power," one service member said.

"It seems like in the '90s, DOD was apolitical, but that doesn’t seem to be the case now. It seems like more and more leaders are more overtly supporting a political side, rather than their oath," another said.

Though most of the members expressed concern about the direction of the military, some shared optimism that the culture could be turned around.

"I still think the military has values that are salvageable," one service member said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Others stressed that the military needs to return its focus on the mission in order to turn things around.

"I prefer a military that was more concerned with the standards of the unit, rather than equity," a service member said, describing those initiatives as "disruptive towards the real training the military should focus on."

Fox News' Houston Keene contributed to this report.

The Army missed its recruiting goal by about 15,000 new soldiers in 2022, coming up 25% short of its goal at a time when each of the services were struggling to meet their benchmarks. Military officials worry that all of the branches have had to reach deep into their pools of delayed entry applicants, a move that puts them behind in recruiting for the new year.

Military recruiters have leaned on tried-and-true factors to explain the challenges, including low unemployment and a dearth of applicants up to physical, educational and behavioral standards.

But the truth is, no one keeps detailed data on what’s stopping America’s youth from signing up. Experts and senior military leaders point to the perennial factors of competition from the private sector and a dwindling number of young Americans both qualified and interested in military service. But what they don’t have much information on is why that propensity is going down, and whether the country is undergoing an ideological shift in attitude toward military service.

One possibility that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too “woke.” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a “woke Army.”

Thomas Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, recently opined that wokeness is the “chief worry of grizzled American veterans today.”

“The largest threat they see by far to our current military is the weakening of its fabric by radical progressive (or ‘woke’) policies being imposed, not by a rising generation of slackers, but by the very leaders charged with ensuring their readiness,” he wrote. “Wokeness in the military is being imposed by elected and appointed leaders in the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon who have little understanding of the purpose, character, traditions, and requirements of the institution they are trying to change.”

Spoehr acknowledged that “direct ‘cause and effect’ studies on the impact of woke policies such as these do not exist,” but suggested that “common sense” dictates that it is having an effect on recruiting.

“Is anyone surprised that potential recruits — many of whom come from rural or poor areas of the country — don’t want to spend their time being lectured about white privilege?” he wrote.

In an interview with Fox News, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate and Army officer who served in Germany during the Cold War, talked about the campaign he is launching, including TV ads and a website, to target what he calls “woke polices” directed toward the military.

“How can we ask young men and women who have decided to risk their lives for America, even die for America, to affirm that our country is inherently racist?” Pompeo wrote in a Sept. 28 opinion column for Fox. “How can we ask them to view their brothers and sisters in arms through the narrow prisms of race or gender? The clear and obvious answer is that we cannot — not without putting their lives at risk on the battlefield. A woke military is a weak military.”

But Defense Department leaders, while often apprehensive to address the intersection of politics and recruiting, have said they don’t see a connection anecdotally or statistically

“That whole ‘woke’ terminology has me a little perplexed,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force JoAnne Bass told Air Force Times Sept. 6. “I don’t know that I agree [with] and appreciate that term.

“I’ve said it before; I think perhaps we do need to wake up to what our society is about today. Perhaps we need to wake up to how we actually have more in common than not. Perhaps we need to wake up to the goodness of the diversity that America brings to the table. That diversity is not just singular to demographic diversity, but … it’s experiences and it’s cognitive diversity as well. I don’t subscribe to the ‘wokeness’ in the way that it’s discussed. I actually think that, yeah, we probably need to wake up to the goodness of what all airmen and what all people bring to the fight.”

In reality, service members spend hundreds of hours a year on mandatory training, covering everything from operational safety to financial responsibility and suicide and sexual assault prevention, with a tiny fraction of that focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion education.

But what seems to incense people is that the issue of racial disparity is discussed at all, not that it’s truly cutting into time spent on training.

Reader feedback

When Marine Corps Reserve Col. Matthew F. Amidon, director of veterans and military families at the George W. Bush Institute, wrote a commentary urging veterans to help during the recruiting crisis by recommending military service to their kids and other young people, Military Times was inundated with a hundreds of emails from veterans saying they would do no such thing.

Their reasons varied, but most said wokeness is to blame. They accused the military of becoming so “political,” or such a “social experiment,” that even proud veterans wouldn’t recommend service.

“I’ll be blunt. I wouldn’t encourage anyone to join today’s armed forces and I discouraged both of my sons from considering serving,” wrote Peter Demas, who described himself as a third-generation veteran. “America’s military leaders have sold out the Services for their own advancement and reflect all the poorest qualities of civilian ‘leadership’ from whom they accepted thirty pieces of silver; instead of being the nation’s repository of integrity and moral courage, they have become more political than the political animals they grovel before.”

Survey data compiled by the Defense Department three times a year shows that propensity to serve has been dipping in latest years. A report from fall 2021 shows that just 9 percent of 16- to 24-year-old survey respondents affirmed that they were likely to be serving in the military “in the next few years,” down from highs of 13% in 2018 and 15% in 2013.

But the survey doesn’t drill down into the why, leaving open questions of whether that’s due to disinterest in the military, known factors that would prevent someone from joining, or a concrete aversion overall. So, while the Pentagon regularly takes the temperature of American youth and their likelihood to join up, they don’t regularly drill down into the “why.”

Still, a vocal group of veterans insist they know the answer.

“With a woke military, whose most senior officer is concerned about ‘white rage,’ searching for a tattle tale process to discover and discharge white ‘extremists,’ blaming it on toxic masculinity, discharging real warriors for not getting vaccinated, having a two-day stand down to discuss white extremism, the promotion and expansion of women in combat, lowering physical fitness standards to accommodate naturally weaker women, recruiting with social justice and diversity ads, stating we need more female and minority pilots, promotions based on the color of one’s skin or genitalia, lowering recruiting standards, blaming the military for 247 years of institutional racism, is not the military I was in for 26 years,” wrote Dale Papworth, who said he was a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel.

Papworth’s comments run counter to some evidence. For instance, the dearth of women and people of color in the upper ranks suggests that if there is a biased promotions system, it’s biased toward white men.

His comments resemble those made by Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, in response to news reports that the Air Force had authorized a maternity flight suit.

“So, we’ve got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits,” Carlson said, also referring recently updated Army and Air Force hair regulations allowing braids and ponytails. “Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It’s a mockery of the U.S. military.”

That statement was misinformed at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. Pregnant women in the military are not allowed to deploy, while pilots and aircrew are required to secure waivers from their doctors in order to do training flights.

That is without even mentioning that the maternity flight suit that so incensed Carlson is not just worn by aircrew onboard aircraft ― it’s a standard day-to-day office uniform in aviation units.

Reader feedback suggests that a military and veteran population that has traditionally leaned conservative is no longer supportive of an institution they find unrecognizable.

“My 19-year-old has expressed in no uncertain terms he does not want to serve in the U.S. military in any capacity,” wrote Adam, who asked to be identified by his first name only. “The politicization of our [government] institutions is creeping into the services now, and that is also having an effect. They may as well put out a sign that conservative or right of center Americans are not welcome. They just keep making it worse with their messaging. Boys want to be challenged and go on adventures, not be schooled on pronouns or the sins of their skin color. Girls want to beat boys and prove themselves.”

Since 2020, the services have ramped up their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, following a lead from then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who in the wake of George Floyd’s murder called on the department to do better.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ran with that idea in the early weeks of the Biden administration, ordering a day-long stand down in every unit to discuss the threat of violent extremism, following years of proclamation from the FBI that right-wing domestic terrorism is on the rise.

But to some, these efforts were a direct attack on their worldview.

“Instead of training and preparing for combat, today’s military is too busy worrying about teaching proper pronouns, how to incorporate men who think they’re women and women who think they’re men into the barracks and showers,” wrote Ron Eslick, describing himself as a 1970s-era Navy submariner. “[Joint Chiefs Chairman] General Milley and Sec Def Austin are a disgrace to the uniform I once wore. They are nothing less than lap dogs to the current administration. What a shame that our country has now become a second rate threat in today’s world.”

And then came the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, one of nearly two dozen inoculations service members must receive in order to join and/or stay in the military, but one whose controversy pushed thousands to preternaturally end their careers.

“Covid vaccine mandates are undermining the military’s recruitment goals as well as harming overall morale,” wrote Harrison Wills. “Even if most troops complied with the mandate, how many did so only because their livelihoods were threatened? How many troops applied for exemptions but were denied? How many soldiers suffered and/or are suffering from side effects? How many people would consider joining the military but now won’t due to coercive mandates?”

A survey released this year of more than 8,600 military families found that troops are becoming less likely to recommend that their kids join up, potentially cutting into a traditionally reliable recruiting pool.

But it wasn’t because of politics, according to Shannon Razsadin, president and executive director of the Military Family Advisory Network, who put out the survey. It was because of quality of life.

“At the end of the day, families are having a hard time making ends meet, and that’s affecting their overall well-being,” she said in July. “We see the connection between well-being and loneliness, well-being and housing, well-being and food security. When you layer that on top of the fact that fewer people are likely to recommend military service, it paints a very clear picture of concern related to the future of the all-volunteer force.”

Notably, however, the survey doesn’t ask specific questions about politics.

Addressing the ‘woke military’ message

Each of the services, along with DoD, are continuously researching the recruiting environment, including tweaking resources and messaging to draw in more prospects.

“The Department continues to review our recruiting programs to ensure current funding and policies align with the realities of today’s youth market. We recognize we must ensure the Services have the resources and support they need to successfully man the All-Volunteer Force,” Army Maj. Charlie Dietz, a Pentagon spokesman, told Military Times.

But they don’t always get it right. In 2018, the Army missed its recruiting goal by about 6,500, the result of an end-strength bump that opened up the doors for more accessions.

The service announced a host of initiatives to Strengthen its 2019 prospects, including a push into major metropolitan areas, with the feeling that their suburban/small-town Southeast well was starting to dry up.

“They did report some positive effects, but the fact that they’re not doing that now suggests that they were limited,” Bruce Orvis, a senior behavioral scientist at the federally funded think tank Rand Corp. who has done dozens of recruiting studies, told Military Times on Sept. 13.

It’s unlikely the Pentagon’s strategy for communicating about its initiatives will change.

“The communication methods on new policies continue to follow a long-standing standard and there have not been any discussions of framing the policies to appease someone that will mold it to meet their argument,” Dietz said.

So, while department officials don’t plan on getting into a direct argument with some of its detractors, they will continue to present their case in as straightforward and nonconfrontational a manner as possible.

“A policy that may increase diversity and inclusion makes us a better military because it brings new perspectives of decision making, operational decision making that we conduct, as well as better ideas, more unique perspectives and increased understanding of experiences which might actually make us smarter on the battlefield,” Dietz added. “We are a stronger military because of our diversity and because we represent all Americans, just like we defend all Americans.”

The chief master sergeant of the Air Force described the path forward differently.

“I feel like I’m a pretty conservative American, but … I’m a conservative American who values what everybody brings to the fight,” Bass said. “… We actually have to educate ourselves and help make ourselves more aware. Often, what you see in a two-second sound bite is not truth. When we read things like, ‘Hey, the military is focused more on pronouns,’ that could not be more inaccurate. We are not focused more on pronouns. We are focused on warfighting and ensuring that we’re able to defend the homeland. That’s what we’re focused on. But the quick two-second sound bite always seems pretty attractive.”

If a misunderstanding of policy is driving down propensity to serve, particularly in communities that have been more likely to join the military in the past, the service could take steps to diagnose that.

One would be to expand the DoD Youth Poll’s questions to drill down into why the respondents answered the way they did.

For example:

• Do you have work or education plans already lined up?
• Do you believe you wouldn’t be able to meet accessions standards?
• Has someone in your life discouraged you from serving in the military?
• Have you read or seen media reports that discourage you from military service?

A task force is already dedicated to looking into some theories about why propensity to serve is down, Orvis said.

The trick will be determining which factors can be remedied without second and third-order effects. For instance, if tight regulations on past mental health history, or criminal history, are keeping the recruiting pool small, the services may be wary of risking continued issues once someone is in uniform.

“Because you don’t want to implement something nationally, on a more or less a permanent basis, if it turns out it’s going to bite you later on it, and you just don’t know,” he said.

The services will also have to redouble their efforts to explain to American youth what it means to serve in the military.

“We must also increase desire to serve in the Army by reconnecting to America through improved marketing and meeting America through interactive events across our nation, including a dedicated surge of Army leaders and soldiers telling their stories,” retired Gen. Paul Funk II, formerly head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told Military Times last summer.” American youth simply don’t understand us, we owe it to them to ensure they understand all the benefits of service.

But in the meantime, with every report of lower recruiting numbers, military leaders will have to fight a perception of political indoctrination.

“The U.S. Army has fallen 15,000 soldiers short of its recruitment goal this year,” tweeted Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. “Maybe we ought to stop imposing vaccine mandates, preferred pronouns, and woke education training on them. Just a thought.”

Is there truth to any of that? Maybe, but the research hasn’t been done. Until it is, the narrative belongs to the loudest voices.

Air Force Times senior reporter Rachel Cohen contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2022 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

SEOUL, Oct 8 (Reuters) - North Korea said on Saturday its missile tests are for self-defence against direct U.S. military threats and they have not harmed the safety of neighbouring countries and regions.

North Korea carried out six missile launches in 12 days as of this week, including launching an intermediate-range missile over Japan on Tuesday.

"Our missile tests are a normal, planned self-defence measure to protect our country's security and regional peace from direct U.S. military threats," said state media KCNA, citing an aviation administration spokesperson.

The missile tests "did not pose any threat or harm to the safety of civil aviation as well as the safety of neighbouring countries and regions, by a full consideration of civil aviation safety in advance."

The message was in response to the International Civil Aviation Organization Council condemning North Korea's missile launches for posing a serious safety risk to international civil aviation, KCNA said.

North Korea's defence ministry was "taking a stern look at the development of the current situation, which is very worrisome," regarding U.S.-South Korean drills involving the nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, KCNA said in a separate statement.

The United States and South Korea held joint maritime exercises on Friday, a day after Seoul scrambled fighter jets in reaction to an apparent North Korean bombing drill.

The United States also announced new sanctions on Friday in response to North Korea's latest missile launches.

Reporting by Joyce Lee; Editing by Leslie Adler, Chris Reese and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

SEOUL, Oct 10 (Reuters) - North Korea's latest flurry of missile tests were designed to simulate showering the South with tactical nuclear weapons as a warning after large-scale navy drills by South Korean and U.S. forces, state news agency KCNA said on Monday.

North Korea fired two ballistic missiles early on Sunday, officials in Seoul and Tokyo said, the seventh such launch since Sept. 25.

Leader Kim Jong Un guided exercises by nuclear tactical units over the past two weeks, involving ballistic missiles with mock nuclear warheads, KCNA reported, saying they were meant to deliver a strong message of war deterrence.

The tests simulated striking military command facilities, main ports, and airports in the South, KCNA added.

"The effectiveness and practical combat capability of our nuclear combat force were fully demonstrated as it stands completely ready to hit and destroy targets at any time from any location," KCNA said.

"Even though the enemy continues to talk about dialogue and negotiations, we do not have anything to talk about nor do we feel the need to do so," KCNA quoted Kim as saying.

KCNA said North Korea's ruling Workers' Party decided to conduct the drills as an unavoidable response to a large-scale mobilisation of U.S. and South Korean naval forces, including an aircraft carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine.

"The statement they've released is crystal clear that this latest spate of tests was their way of signalling resolve to the United States and South Korea as they carried out military activities of their own," said Ankit Panda of the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The United States and South Korea held joint maritime exercises involving a U.S. aircraft carrier on Friday, a day after the South scrambled fighter jets in reaction to an apparent North Korean aerial bombing drill. read more

The navy exercises involved the U.S. carrier Ronald Reagan and its strike group. The naval forces of South Korea, Japan and the United States also conducted joint drills before that.

After the North Korea statement on Monday, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol's office said "it is important to accurately recognise the severity of security issues in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia to prepare properly," an official was quoted as saying.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida separately condemned Pyongyang's latest missile launches and vowed to work toward "the complete denuclearisation of North Korea in accordance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions."

"This series of ballistic missile (launches) and these various provocative acts are in clear violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions and are absolutely unacceptable," Kishida told reporters when asked to comment on Monday's statement.

The U.S.-led UN forces are still technically at war with North Korea as the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

North Korea had only referred to one missile as having a tactical nuclear capability, but the statement clarifies that many systems, new and old, will be assigned such a role, Panda said.

If North Korea resumes nuclear testing, it could include development of smaller “tactical” warheads meant for battlefield use and designed to fit on short-range missiles such as the ones tested recently, analysts said.

South Korean and U.S. officials say there are signs North Korea could soon detonate a new nuclear device in underground tunnels at its Punggye-ri Nuclear Test site, which was officially shuttered in 2018.

Analysts say putting small warheads on short-range missiles could represent a dangerous change in the way North Korea deploys and plans to use nuclear weapons.

NEW MISSILE, UNDERWATER SILOS

On Oct. 4, the North test-fired a ballistic missile farther than ever before, flying what it said was a new intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) missile over Japan for the first time since 2017.

Analysts confirmed the photos released by state media do show a previously unseen IRBM.

"It's incredibly unusual, though, that they'd test a previously untested missile for the first time over Japan; it suggest a substantial degree of confidence in the engine," Panda said.

Among the other missiles shown in the photos were short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) that included KN-25 and KN-23 types as well as one with a heavy 2.5-ton payload, as well as a KN-09 300mm Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS).

The photos notably showed a test of a "navalised" KN-23 designed to be launched from a submarine. That missile was showcased in a test in the ocean last year, but this time the test was conducted in a way that simulated a launch from what state media called "a silo under a reservoir."

This year has seen North Korea test fire missiles from different locations and launch platforms, including trains, in what analysts say is an effort to simulate a conflict and make it difficult for enemies to detect and destroy the missiles.

The KN-23 is designed to perform a “pull-up” manoeuvre as it approaches a target, intended to help it evade missile defenses.

(This story has been refiled to fix the spelling of "Kishida" in paragraphs 12-13)

Reporting by Cynthia Kim and Jack Kim; Additional reporting by Kantaro Komiya; Editing by Cynthia Osterman, Aurora Ellis, Lincoln Feast and Gerry Doyle

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.