Clinton defense secretary William Perry is ready to attack North Korea, now.
Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?… If North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.
But there’s a teeny-tiny fact Perry seems to have overlooked: We have no idea, really, whether North Korea is preparing a missile. Or what that missile is capable of doing.
The hype kicked into high gear when the New York Times claimed that the Norks “completed fueling a long-range ballistic missile” over the weekend. But the report is getting fishier by the second. The Norks generally rely on a highly corrosive gasoline-kerosene mix for their missile fuel, and an oxidizer containing nitric acid. It’s nasty, metal-eating stuff. And once fueled up, the missile has to be launched quickly — two or three days, I’ve been told — or else the missile is basically ruined.
It’s now been four days. And there’s been no launch. Which means it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that a missile has been fueled. So much for Perry’s demand “to strike the [missile] if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out.“
And, of course, there may not be an ICBM at all. Remember, the North Koreans have launched exactly one intermediate-range ballistic missile, in 1998. The thing — a combination of smaller, Nodong and Scud missiles — went about 2,000 km or so. Now, U.S. intelligence assumes the Norks have been working on strapping together more Nodongs and Scuds (or, at least, their engines) for an ICBM — something that can reach three to five times further, and hit the U.S. But no one has actually seen the weapon. Even how many the stages the mystery missile has in unknown; some folks say two, others say three.
Plus, as the Post mentioned a few days back, Pyongyang has a long history of staging elaborate hoaxes, in order to get the world’s attention.
A year ago, the world was on edge after reports that North Korea might test a nuclear weapon — and one report even suggested the evidence showed that viewing stands had been built. No test took place.
Now, what happens if we strike North Korea — and there’s no missile to hit? What does that do to American standing, then?
UPDATE 11:47 AM: “South Korea’s defense minister said Thursday that Seoul believes North Korea’s missile launch is not imminent despite concern in the region that the communist nation would test-fire a long-range missile.” (AP, via FP Passport)
UPDATE 5:36 PM:Even Dick Cheney — Dick Cheney, fer chrissakes! — is pouring cold water on the Nork missile threat. Check out this interview with CNN’s John King:
KING: Do we know what’s on that missile? Is it a satellite? Is it a warhead? Is it a test?
CHENEY: We don’t know. That’s one of the concerns, that this is a regime that’s not transparent that we believe has developed nuclear weapons and now has put a missile on a launch pad without telling anybody what it’s all about — as to put a satellite in orbit, or a simple test flight. They will, obviously, generate concern on the part of their neighbors and the United States to the extent that they continue to operate this way.
As the president’s made clear, this is not the kind of behavior we’d like to see, given the fact the North Koreans do have a nuclear program and have refused to come clean about it.
KING: What do we know about their capabilities? Some have said this new longer range missile could reach Guam, perhaps Alaska. Others say, no, it might be able to reach Los Angeles. And there are some who think maybe even right here, Washington, D.C. What do we know?
CHENEY: We — this is first test of this particular Taepo Dong II missile — we believe it does have a third stage added to it now. But again, we don’t know what the payload is. I think it’s also fair to say that the North Korean missile capabilities are fairly rudimentary. They’ve been building Scuds and so forth over the years. But their test flights in the past haven’t been notably successful. But we are watching it with interest and following it very closely. (emphasis mine)
National Security Adviser Steven Hadley says the same thing, basically: “In terms of North Korean intentions, you know this is a very opaque society, and very hard to read.” Then he adds this little gem about our mighty missile defense system:
“We have a missile defense system … what we call a long-range missile defense system that is basically a research, development, training, test kind of system,” Hadley said. “It does … have some limited operational capability. And the purpose, of course, of a missile defense system is to defend .… the territory of the United States from attack.”
(big ups: RC)
If the Norks stage an elaborate hoax to scare us, and we respond by bombing without knowing it’s a hoax, I hardly see how that reflects badly on us. On American intelligence, perhaps, but not on the national character.
And, quite frankly, I really doubt the reputation of American intelligence can sink that much lower.
Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
General “Buck” Turgidson
Sure, what the hell, Americans are so hated in most of the world…what difference will it make to trash some No. Koreans. You can’t hardly travel anywhere anymore without fear. Let’s become the ultimate bully on the block. USA..the eventual lonely, isolated, impotent country that “coulda been a contender” in true world leadership…what a waste. Let’s dig ourselves deeper into a hole.
If they want to stage a hoax then they must be prepared for the consequences of it actually passing as believable.
And, quite frankly, I really doubt the reputation of American intelligence can sink that much lower.
Well, Cheney sounds as well-informed as ever.…
On to more serious things: I have it on good authority that there’s a sullen Latvian who’s putting a pipe bomb together. Crank up the B-2’s, pronto!
By the way, love the “Norks” term. Are they gonna be in a Spielberg movie?
Matthew,
While you’re right that the Titan II used storable fuels, they were actually Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). Aerozine is a 50–50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH). RP-1 and LOX were used on the Titan I.
People not versed in the minutae of the BMD debate should understand where many of these comments come from. Just as some proponents may have a ‘blind faith’ in technology, many missile defense opponents have their snark rooted in theological hostility to BMD because it’s not their arms control preference, it’s seen as “Republican” and so forth. Citing large spending numbers without the context of year-to-year programmatic and policy battles, micromanaging via legislation, etc. provides no real light or resolution on the wisdom of BMD, all it produces are knowing head-bobs from the anti-BMD ideologues.
Luca: “People not versed in the minutae of the BMD debate should understand where many of these comments come from. Just as some proponents may have a ‘blind faith’ in technology, many missile defense opponents have their snark rooted in theological hostility to BMD because it’s not their arms control preference, it’s seen as “Republican” and so forth. Citing large spending numbers without the context of year-to-year programmatic and policy battles, micromanaging via legislation, etc. provides no real light or resolution on the wisdom of BMD, all it produces are knowing head-bobs from the anti-BMD ideologues.“
Luca, aside from the AP story noted above, we’ve seen 20 years and $60 billion poured into missile defense. The current status is that the tests are rigged to the gills (GPS transponders, decoys designed not to be confused with the warhead, etc.). Not that the fakers will admit that up-front — they brag about a successful test, and then spin away the reality later, once it’s revealed.
Some people compare what we were promised, with what’s proven, decades and much cash later, and don’t trust BMD proponents.
Personally, I think that the proposals to attack the launch site are telling — if we had anything worth a d*mn, we’d shoot the missile down inflight. But I guess that we don’t want to risk that sort of failure.
Good Morning Folks,
First off I would like to thank the people who had the dialogue on Liguid Fuel, I enjoyed and learned much from your dicussion.
That said it appears that the North Koreans fueling of their missile sitting in the upright launch position was a hoax. More detailed photos released last night show two tanker trucks under camo. netting on either side of the missile. A closer look at the missile strongly indicated it is unfueled.
It does appear that the North Koreans do have a sense of humor after all. Back away and look at the scene of the missile and the two tanker trucks under the netting and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the North Koreans are flipping us off.
Maybe there is a message here for all those who take these folks seriously. I think even the Bushies should realize when they have been had.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
No need to refight the wars here, but the charges of “rigged” tests are generally proved to result from unwarranted hyperbole of opponents or a fundamental misunderstand of what the test is set out to accomplish and how programs like this have to be tested (e.g., transponders for range safety and tracking, data collection and so forth). It’s hard for the press to understand, but some tests aren’t about hitting and destroying a target. Do some BMD proponents often crow about test successes when they should be more measured, sure–but does MDA purposely rig tests to present false data and conclusions, no they don’t.
UDMH-STORAGE