From the KCNA:

Pyongyang, October 11 (KCNA) -- The successful advance of the Korean revolution is firmly guaranteed by the great Songun politics, the philosophy on arms. The arms philosophy is a unique one advanced by Kim Jong Il, Songun commander of Mt. Paektu, with the viewpoint on the arms that the arms are the permanent companion and comrade of the revolutionaries.

The philosophy is based on the principle that the revolution for the independence of the popular masses is initiated, advanced and accomplished by force of arms.

If they want to make a revolution, the popular masses should not only be awakened to rise up but also firmly take rifles in their hands.

This is because the reactionary exploiting classes, counter-revolutionary forces, violate and restrict the independence of the people in reliance upon the counter-revolutionary violence.

The path for the revolution is explored by the people only when they make a breach in the counter-revolutionary violence by force of arms.

The arms also play an important role in the whole period of progressing and carrying out the revolution.

It is a serious lesson of the history left by the former socialist countries. A party, with millions of party members, ceased to exist as it failed to seize the army and some countries had socialism collapsed as they weakened military strength.

The arms philosophy also includes the principle that the army is precisely the party, state and people.

The party, the general staff of the revolution and the guiding force, can ensure its leading position under the protection of the army and demonstrate its invincible might.

A party with a long history and tradition met its tragic end in the consequence of "depoliticizing" the army and neglecting ideological work within it. But the Workers' Party of Korea has made a victorious advance of the revolution by seizing the army under difficult conditions. These instances contrastingly show that the party with powerful revolutionary armed forces is invincible.

The revolutionary army and the people's government share the destiny with each other proceeding from the commonness of their characters and basic mission. The independent and creative life of the people is unthinkable apart from a strong army.

The unique philosophy on arms of Korea testifies to its correctness and vitality in the revolution thanks to the Songun politics based on the philosophy.

Unlike the news release that announced the entry of North Korea into the nuclear club, this announcement has Kim Jong Il's name on it. It also spells out in no uncertain terms that the army is the first and foremost power group in North Korea. I also find it interesting that in speaking of the power of the army, it makes no mention of nuclear weapons, but focuses exclusively on an army of armed soldiers loyal to the party and to the political philosophy of the party.

A nuclear bomb has no philosophical preferences.

I wonder whether there is any significance to all this. The nuclear detonations are announced without mentioning Kim Jong Il by name on the same day as there is an expression for peaceful coexistance, including the creation of an army that is loyal to a federal republic instead to either the North or the South. The next day we've got a press release with Kon Jong Il's name explaining that the stability of the North is guaranteed by a politicized army of soldiers, making no mention of super-weapons as playing a part in that all-important role.

Is there a struggle going on in Pyongyang about what the value of a nuclear arsenal really is? On the one hand, both sets of news releases make no mention of nuclear devices being integral to the defence of the DPRK. On the other hand, this later news release seems to push back on the earlier one by re-affirming that the army must never be depoliticized, a critical element of the DFRK suggestion.

It's as if there are two sides arguing over exactly what to bargain for, should the Western powers ask the North Koreans what they want in return for dismantling their nuclear weapons program. One side sees it as an opportunity to dramatically rewrite the political equation on the Korean peninsula, probably fearing that, nuclear weapons notwithstanding, North Korea cannot continue on its present military and economic course for long. The other side is far more limited in what it is willing to do in return for giving up the nuclear weapons program -- a guaranteed peace, yes, but no signficant change in the situation that would see power of the North Korean leadership diluted in any way.