No, the article lays this out quite sensibly. If NK could reasonably assume that their long-range missiles would continue to pose a threat to the US mainland or

No, the article lays this out quite sensibly. If NK could reasonably assume that their long-range missiles would continue to pose a threat to the US mainland or military bases after a foreign aggression, then they could and would have to use nuclear weapons against any local aggressors first - their military would not stand much of a chance in a conventional joint attack by SK and the US. However, they do not (yet) have the ability to safely make this assumption. Their missile launchers and nuclear weapon facilities would be obliterated immediately by the absolute air superiority of any possible aggressor (SK, USA, China, Russia). I believe that their nuclear weapon program has the simpler goal to prevent limited SK and US aggressions such as aerial bombardments by continually threatening to retaliate against Seoul. This threat is fairly irrational, because it would likely trigger a nuclear response, so they seem to currently follow a "mad dog" strategy. Not that I would know, though; I'm not a military analyst.