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)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea
» Missile details: Tien Ma 1
» Missile system details for: Aegis Ship-Based BMD, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
