Lowry on Missile Defense as “Stabilizing”
June 24, 2006 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, argues that missile defense can be a “stabilizing force” rather than a “destabilizing” one, as critics often claim. In the context a possible North Korean long-range missile test, missile defense is itself a kind of deterrence, for it provides the North Korean leadership with good reason not to launch. “If a Kim Jong-il knows that a launch against the U.S. might not even succeed but risks calling down a devastating response, he would be that much less likely to try in the first place,” writes Lowry. “Just as importantly, by rendering his nuclear arsenal less reliable, missile defense limits Kim’s ability to deter and/or coerce the U.S. (from attacking him in the first instance and into giving him aid in the second).” It is ironic, he adds, that those who oppose missile defense, including two top Clinton-administration defense officials, are now advocating a preemptive U.S. strike against the North Korean launch site. Such a strike would be an act of war against a sovereign state. “It is passing strange that liberals should want our only option in the event of a nuclear missile attack from North Korea or another rogue state to be absorbing the blow, then annihilating the offending country,” he writes. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
NRO Symposium on Missile Defense and North Korea
June 24, 2006 :: Analysis
A recent symposium on National Review Online presented a range of options for what to do about North Korea.
Angelo M. Codevilla, professor of international relations at Boston University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argues that the U.S. should “get serious about missile defense.” He calls the current U.S. missile defense program “Clinton lite and twice the price,” a reference to the Bush administration’s adoption of Clinton’s favoring of ground-based interceptors and other near-term solutions over more effective space-based assets.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, argues that ballistic missile defense will simply not work, and that “no serious person believes this.” The tests of the ground-based interceptors currently deployed in Alaska and California have not been robust enough or realistic enough to assure that the U.S. can intercept a North Korean missile, if launched. The U.S. should instead destroy the missile on its site. “Our ability to preempt the launch is nearly certain,” he wrote.
Malcolm Wallop, former senator and founder and chairman of Frontiers of Freedom, argues that the U.S. should deploy Aegis missile defense warships within range of any North Korea launch sites, making it clear that any missiles launched will be destroyed over North Korean territory. The U.S. should also “demonstrably arm” the ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska. Only as a last resort should the U.S. attack North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities directly (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
Blank on Moscow’s Complacency Toward North Korea
June 24, 2006 :: Analysis
Stephen Blank, professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, notes that Russia has displayed “amazing insouciance” toward the possible North Korean long-range missile test. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently referred to warnings of a possible test as “purely speculative,” while Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide, Igor Shuvalov, referred to North Korea’s actions as a “psychological test.” Blank documents the Kremlin’s only complaint to date, the fact that nobody has formally notified it of any potential North Korean missile launch. Among Russian experts, the consensus seems to be that Pyongyang’s launch preparations are nothing more than the usual manifestations of political blackmail to secure economic advantages, or perhaps jealousy over the concessions that Iran has been gaining due to its own nuclear program. Blank notes that such conclusions indicate a “widening sphere of discord with Washington” over the issues of North Korea and proliferation and the North Korean. “Under these circumstances,” he writes, “it is reasonable to ask whose psyche needs testing: those who proliferate or those who remain in denial about proliferation’s ultimate consequences for them and everyone else.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Proliferation, Russia
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
North Korea Reaffirms: No Longer Bound by Testing Moratorium
June 20, 2006 :: Financial Times :: News
North Korea has again declared that it will no longer adhere to a 2002 agreement with Japan in which it promised not to test long-range ballistics missiles. The 2002 Pyongyang Declaration was signed by Kim Jong Il, North Korea’s leader, and Junichiro Koizumi, Japan’s prime minister. On Tuesday night, however, Ri Pyong Dok, a North Korean foreign ministry official, told Japanese journalists in Pyongyang that a long-range missile test launch “is not bound by any statement such as the Pyongyang Declaration.” The moves comes as North Korea prepares to launch a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range missile that could reach Japan and parts of the continental U.S. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Japan, North Korea
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Hwang: Direct Talks with North Korea Would Reward “Manipulation and Brinksmanship”
June 20, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: News
Balbina Y. Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, argues that the U.S. must not reward North Korea’s “manipulation and brinksmanship.” By threatening to test-launch its Taep’o-dong 2 long-range missile, Pyongyang is attempting to force Washington to engage in direct bilateral talks. “The United States has been clear that all diplomatic negotiations must go through the Six-Party framework involving North Korea, the United States, South Korea, Russia, Japan, and China,” she writes. “The Bush Administration should make clear that aggressive behavior by the North Koreans will not cause the United States to alter its position.” Rather than succumbing to Pyongyang’s belligerent behavior, Washington should keep the military option on the table, and make it clear to the North Korean leadership that it will shoot down the missile with ground-based interceptors. Hwang adds that if Pyongyang goes ahead with the launch, Washington should bring North Korea’s aggression before the U.N. Security Council. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Gaffney Warns of North Korean EMP Attack, Calls for Increased Missile Defense
June 20, 2006 :: National Review Online :: Analysis
Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, warns in National Review Online that the U.S. remains vulnerable to an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack from North Korea. If North Korea were to detonate a nuclear warhead high in the atmosphere above the U.S., the resulting burst of immensely powerful energy would devastate nearly every form of electrical system in the nation. In 2004, a blue-ribbon commission tasked by Congress with assessing the EMP threat found that it could have a “catastrophic” effect, possibly reducing the U.S. to a pre-industrial society. The commission noted that an EMP could be delivered with a “relatively unsophisticated missile,” and named North Korea as one of the states that could be seeking such a capability. In his article, Gaffney calls upon the U.S. to “make a redoubled effort to deploy effective, comprehensive defenses against ballistic missiles that might be used for EMP and other attacks.” He urges the Pentagon to augment the modest ground-based systems in Alaska and California, in particular with increased sea-based defenses that could shoot down North Korean missiles at various points in their flight path. (Article, Link)
» July 22, 2004: EMP Commission Report Points to Need for Missile Defense
» More stories on: Analysis, Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons, North Korea
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
Missile Defense System Declared “Operational”
June 20, 2006 :: Washington Times :: News
The U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system is now said to be operational, as North Korea prepares to test launch its Taep’o-dong 2 ballistic missile. The defensive system currently consists of 11 ground-based interceptor missiles, nine deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. In addition, two Navy Aegis warships are on patrol near North Korea and would be among the first sensors that could trigger the use of the ground-based interceptors. The ground-based interceptors appear to constitute the only defense against the North Korean missiles, which are capable of striking the continental U.S. If the Aegis ships in the Sea of Japan contain Standard Missile interceptors in addition to their radars and tracking sensors, this has not been publicly announced. It is not clear if the announcement is of permanent operational capability, or if it is rather keeping with previous announcements of limited and intermittent operational capability, on special alert given North Korea’s apparent missile fueling.
The GMD missile system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, according to various defense sources. The Washington Times cites a senior Bush administration official as stating that the White House is currently considering how to proceed if and when the Taep’o-dong 2 were to be launched. A decision to shoot down the missile would be made at the highest command levels, which includes the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that a North Korean launch would be a serious matter and “would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Deployment, North Korea, Policy
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
» Missile system details for: Fort Greely, Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI), Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Vandenberg Air Force Base
Kennedy Discusses Missile Defense on Good Morning America
June 20, 2006 :: Analysis
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, discussed U.S. missile defense policy today on Good Morning America. As North Korea appears to fuel their Taep’o-Dong 2 missile, Kennedy made the case for a robust and layered missile defense shield that would protect the U.S. from a potentially devastating attack. He noted that although the Bush administration is currently deployed a ground-based missile defense system, the current shield is far from complete and will require increased funding. “It’s a question of quality here,” he said. “We believe that the president is very well intentioned when it comes to missile defense. It’s just that we’re just not putting the resources toward it quickly enough.” (Article, Link)
» Watch Brian T. Kennedy on Good Morning America
» More stories on: North Korea, Policy
McCain on North Korea, Suggests Role for China
June 20, 2006 :: Financial Times :: News
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, recently discussed the threat from North Korea in an interview with the Financial Times. In particular, McCain warned of possible regional destabilization between Japan and China if North Korea goes ahead with its test launch of its Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile.
We all know what happens if they [North Korea] continue to make this kind of progress and that is the Japanese will acquire missile defence systems and eventually will have to acquire offensive weapons which we know they could readily do given the technology capability they have. The key to all this as we all know is China. It seems to me it is not in China’s interest to see this kind of destabilisation. They’re doing very well and exacerbation of tensions in the region cannot be in their interest. So why they don’t put more pressure on the dear leader is something I simply do not understand. … Depending on what we find out about what North Korea is doing and what its intentions are, we have to ratchet up the importance of the issue in our relationship [with China].
McCain also reiterated his previous opposition to the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, in which North Korea was provided with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually, at no cost, in exchange for suspending its nuclear program. The Framework, supported by the Clinton administration, was and still is viewed by many as blackmail on the part of North Korea, and appeasement on the part of the U.S. According to McCain, the program was “neither verifiable nor enforceable,” and did not do much except “maybe put a billion dollars into the Korean coffers.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: China, Japan, North Korea
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
North Korea Said Readying Taep’o-dong 2 for Test Launch
June 19, 2006 :: New York Times :: News
North Korea has completed fueling a Taep’o-dong 2 long-range ballistic missile, greatly increasing the probability that it will go ahead with its first major test launch in eight years. On Sunday, U.S. officials reported that satellite photographs of a launch site on North Korea’s eastern coast suggested that liquid-fuel tanks had been fitted to the missile. Fueling is a late step in the preparations for a liquid-fueled missile launch. U.S. officials and analysts regard the move as a leading indicator of North Korea’s intentions. Reports also indicate that booster rockets have been loaded onto the launch pad.
North Korea has not conducted a major test launch since August 1998, when it fired a Taep’o-dong 1 missile over Japan. In 1999, North Korea agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile testing, which it has maintained, although in the past year there were indications that North Korea had declared itself no longer bound by that moratorium. Yet five weeks ago, U.S. officials received satellite images indicating that North Korea was preparing to test the three-stage Taep’o-dong 2. The first stage is believed to be a cluster of No-dong missiles, which are single-stage, shorter-range rockets; the second stage is likely a No-dong missile; the third would probably be solid-fueled. U.S. officials believe that North Korea has enough plutonium for at least half a dozen nuclear weapons and has already produced a small but growing nuclear arsenal.
If North Korea launches the Taep’o-dong 2, with a range possibly sufficient to reach the continental U.S., the consequences could be tremendous. The New York Times comments that the result could be “a political chain reaction in Japan, the United States, and China,” the three nations that have been trying to re-engage North Korea in stalled talks about its nuclear weapons program. The U.S. and Japan might step up financing and efforts for ballistic missile defenses, and Japanese politicians might even push to reconsider their nation’s nuclear weapons policy. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: North Korea, Testing - Foreign
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
