This seems to be an own-goal by Gates yesterday. It makes us sound weak, when in fact it isn’t true. There are a number of things we could do about it — the administration just thinks that doing those things are worse choices than doing nothing. As the most obvious example, we could simply bomb and destroy the launch site. We could do this today, or tomorrow, or any day up to the launch. This would absolutely guarantee that North Korea doesn’t do the missile testsatellite launch.
Would it be a good idea? I think so. The regime is in violation of so many UN resolutions, bi- and multi-lateral agreements, etc., that it would be a minor consequence for its criminal behavior over the past decades.
But I can’t imagine this administration, of all administrations, wanting to stir up that hornet’s nest. They’re too busy indulging themselves in the delusion that the reason the rest of the world is unhappy with us is George Bush. And of course, even those countries who were secretly happy to see it, including China, would still be pleased to make political hay over it, churn up international outrage, etc. So it’s probably off the table. But we should say that, instead of implying that we’re impotent.
And just how is it that the NORKs get away with overflight of Japan on a launch? While they are geographically disadvantaged, and can’t get to orbit eastward without doing so, Israel doesn’t use that excuse. If they did, they wouldn’t take the trouble to launch retrograde to avoid overflight of their (hostile) neighbors. North Korea should just have to settle for either hiring someone else to launch, or lease a launch site somewhere else, as any other simililarly-situated nation (e.g., Switzerland) would have to.
Perhaps we might persuade Japan to do something about it, with offers to back them diplomatically. They’re more justified than we are. If they have to shoot down the missile, there’s still a chance that it would come down on their territory. Destroying it on the ground would eliminate this problem. An ounce of prevention, etc…
[Update a few minutes later]
Charles Johnson makes another point that I should have:
This is really a stunning statement. Why didn’t Gates say something like, “We’re not prepared to discuss any plans we may have for dealing with the North Korean missile launch”? To tell them outright that we’re not going to do anything at all is unbelievably stupid. What the hell is going on here?
Was this an explicit decision on the part of the Obama administration, or did he wing it? Either way, confidence is not inspired.
Considering we’re already fighting two wars, not starting a third one seems reasonable to me.
With whom would we be “starting a war” and what would be its outcome? Did Israel “start a war” with Iraq when they took out the Osirak reactor?
Anyway, your comment is beside the point. My point is that in fact we can prevent them from launching if we choose to, contrary to Secretary Gates’ statement. Whether we should or not is a different topic.
It’s almost certain that we’ll get blamed if the missile fails anyway so why not take it out?
We would be starting a war with North Korea. Bombing somebody’s territory is an act of war. So, yes, Israel did start a war with its strike on the Osirak reactor. Iraq chose not to respond, probably because they lacked the capability to do so effectively.
North Korea could easily start shelling Seoul South Korea, so they do have a capability to respond. I don’t know if they would or not, and that’s the point. Until we extricate ourselves from one of our two current wars, why risk starting a third?
It’s not a moral argument, it’s a capability argument.
There is another consideration here. Obama (PBUH) and the rest of the Dems strongly oppose the various missile defense programs for a variety of reasons, and using these technologies to intercept a Nork missile would go a long way towards validating their usefulness. On the other hand, NOT using systems available (arguing that they aren’t capable of doing the job) goes a long way towards delegitimizing any investment in those systems, something that the Dems would find very convenient…
Gerrib seems to be one of those people who think that it takes two parties to fight.
Ever since the North Koreans have announced they’d take it as an act of war if the launch failed, I’ve pretty much concluded that the rocket will fail like the last one did, and the North Koreans will try to use that as casus belli to try to invade the South. With no food to feed the populace, a nominal leader whom Western agencies were publically wondering last summer if had been replaced by his doubles after an unusually long “illness,” and a military that serves as the only way to advance in the country, I’m wondering if the North Korean generals are figuring that if they have to go down (and make no mistake, they cannot help but go down at this point), then they’ll go down swinging and try to take as many of the rest of us with them as they can manage.
This stuff about not having the capability to intercept (while the Japanese set up their own defenses, which are based on our systems from 20+ years ago, as we move destroyers into the area – ones that have the same systems we used to take down the spysat last year) suggests to me that we’re trying to avoid taking any blame for whatever the North is trying to set up. Given that it’s the US and some tinpot leftist dictatorship though, I don’t really know why we’re bothering; we’ll get blamed regardless.
Mr. Gerrib doesn’t seem to understand that we have been at war with North Korea since 1950, and the armistice has not negated that state of war.
As late as 1969, the North Koreans were killing our military personnel on a regular basis, and there have been isolated incidents since.
I am a wee bit more sanguine than our host about this, though.
One of the strategic problems the US faces is the “free rider” problem. Many parts of the world (*cough* Old Europe *cough*) have gotten used to the US picking up the tab for security. Our “shoulder shrug” might be a not so subtle comment that the free ride isn’t so free any more.
MG – I’m aware we’re legally at war with North Korea. Again, the issue isn’t whether the NK communists are a bunch of shits or not. The issue is we don’t have a lot of spare troops sitting around.
If we did have to go fight a conventional war in Korea, we’d be calling up the entire National Guard and reinstating the draft. We may have to anyway, but why hurry it along?
Also, we just might get lucky and Kim Il Jung may join the Ceauşescu / Mussolini club of dictators displayed in the streets while hanging from meat hooks.
Mr Gerrib says’ “If we did have to go fight a conventional war in Korea, we’d be calling up the entire National Guard and reinstating the draft. We may have to anyway, but why hurry it along?”
What an incredibly naive thing to say. Why on earth would we have to call up the “the entire National guard” and what the heck would the draft do for us? (Why are those on the “left,” sorry Rand for the label, so enamored with the draft? Having served in our military from 1977 to just recently, I for one am very glad the draft went away.)
Do you think we have no contingency plans for the Korean Penninsula? Do you really think the South Koreans won’t have a say about this? What the hell do you think our military has been doing in Korea all of these years? I’ll give you a hint…preparing to fight the North! Given a conventional fight, my money’s on the South Koreans and the existing US forces concluding the “war” in a fairly short order. IMHO, like the mighty Republican Guard in Feb 91, the North Korean army wouldn’t know what hit them.
Steve A. – based on my military experience (1989-1994) I am also in no hurry for a draft. I do assume that we have plans should the North go south, so to speak.
However, given that we’d end up occupying the North for a fair chunk of time, plus given the North’s artillery capability, I suspect heavy casualties and a need for more troops.
I suspect that the South may already be exercising its say with regard to the rocket launch. Something along the lines of “don’t re-start the war.”
Chris, why do you think South Korea couldn’t beat the NORKs pretty easily all by themselves? What do the NORKs have besides a whole lot of semi-starved illiterate peasant boys carrying 1950s ex-Soviet rifles?
I don’t doubt that the US might have to provide some useful logistical support, maybe a little air cover, but I’d be surprised if any ground troops were necessary. In 1953 the two Koreas were at roughly par in terms of their capability. Not any more. It’s not even North v. South in the American Civil War any more. The NORKs are nowhere near as powerful as the South in 1861.
To my mind, the best analysis here is Scott’s. I think there is no way the Administration is going to risk a successful missile intercept. Such a thing would make public demand for deployment of BMD unstoppable, not only here but in Europe, too, which would derail all the aging detente people, as well as queer up Obama’s hope to buy off Russia enough to let The One concentrate on Sovietizing the United States. Not to mention it would let all those evil Republicans going right back to “Star Wars” Reagan say ha ha told you so. Unbearable.
Carl, the issue isn’t whether the South Korean can ultimately defeat the NORKs, obviously they can. The question is how much damage they’re willing to sustain with all of the artillery pounding Seoul for days before they can neutralize all of the hardened emplacements in the hills on the border. Maybe MOABS could take them out quickly, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Anyway, my point was not that we should relish getting into a war, just that what Gates said was foolish on more than one level.
This blogger seems to think we have six AEGIS anti-missile capable ships in the Sea of Japan. (Three Japanese and three US).
We may not be able to prevent the launch but we might be able to shoot it down.
Rand, the ‘killer Nork artillery’ was a real threat 10 years ago, but time and a lack of resources have taken their toll. There is no fuel, much of the ammo cannot be easily moved, and maintenance on the pieces themselves has been inadequate at best. Without citing sources, there is very little concern among any professionals that I know of that the Norks can sustain much more than a few spasmodic bursts of very poorly aimed fire.
Now all of that notwithstanding, a few spasmodic bursts of poorly aimed fire can do one hell of a lot of damage (given the plentitude of targets available), but this is nothing at all like the sort of apocolyptic damage that could have been anticipated 10-15 years ago. The truth of the matter is that while the Nork security forces would likely put down a revolt against the government (and even that is not so sure these days), they are unlikely to be too reliable on the offense. Some units will, some will not, and even those few that will could do very serious damage, but they have gone from massive threat to serious annoyance…
And just how is it that the NORKs get away with overflight of Japan on a launch? While they are geographically disadvantaged, and can’t get to orbit eastward without doing so, Israel doesn’t use that excuse. If they did, they wouldn’t take the trouble to launch retrograde to avoid overflight of their (hostile) neighbors.
NK’s neighbors won’t dare impose any sanctions or other measures on NK that might substantially harm its regime, for any reason or provocation. Why not? Simply put, they fear the prospect of having to deal with a massive influx of NK refugees in the event of Pyongyang’s collapse. Even SK, which has professed a desire for an eventual peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, is scared to death of this possibility even though it would amount to reunification by default, and on the South’s own terms, no less.
“How do the NORKs get away with overflight of
japan on a launch”.
I suspect because it’s covered under treaty.
if the koreans fly a lofted trajectory, anything over
125 KM is considered space for National Technical means.
The FAI determines it to be 100 KM and the Salt
treaty uses 75 Miles.
now for Korea to fly retrograde is just stupid.
China is all the western trajectories and they would
be dropping stages in china, not a smart move
at all.
There appears to be a polar trajectory that heads
south and avoids the phillipines, but it may toss
a stage right down that way and some
unlucky winds may push the stage into
australia.
really all North Korea really has is a good
corridor out over japan, and if they work
with the japanese to make sure the stages
don’t land close, and aren’t dumping toxics,
it can be made to work.
The russians drop stages on their neighbors
and those stages are full of MMH/NTO.
the biggest question is north korea is broke,
how are they affording all this?
Gerrib’s not only wrong about starting a war with North Korea, but also about Israel starting a war with Iraq. Iraq has been at war with Israel since 1948 and is only now (discreetly) starting talks about a peace treaty with Israel.
I have little doubts who would win a North/South Korea war. Tanks, airpower, South Korea has advantages in all these areas. The USA also has plenty of troops stationed at South Korea and Japan. I suspect Russia and China wouldn’t worry too much about it this time either.
I doubt it will be cost-effective though. I suspect it will resolve itself.
Godzilla,
Wester Germany ‘won’ their war of reunification with East Germany without a shot being fired, and I doubt that you could find more than 10 West Germans in the whole country who would tell you that this bloodless total victory was worth it or even particularly desirable. They (the West germans) inherited a dysfunctional basket-case economically, socially and politically, and two decades down the road, they are still picking up the pieces.
Compared to North Korea, East Germany was an efficiently run, forward-thinking paradise. I can easily understand why the South Koreans (how ever much retail sympathy they might have for individual victims of that horrid regime to their north) want absolutely nothing to do with the aftermath of even a completely bloodless victory over the North.
And by the way, who says it will be bloodless, or even easy? The Nork army is pretty much moribund, true, but the relatively large number of smaller commando units, and other ‘special’ forces (all sorts of ugly WMD-like rumors abound) could do a very large amount of damage in the last twitching spasms of Nork senescense.
Aloha
I live in Hawaii and we have something here called Sea-Based X-Band Radar, or SBX, which is described as “one of the United States’ most valuable assets and the best discriminating and tracking sensor for ballistic missile launches,” It is placed at see and can track something as small as a baseball. It has not been deployed and has been docked for the past several months at Ford Island here in Honolulu. Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. Ellison sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the deployment of all available missile defense assets in the Pacific. Well I can tell you the thing is still siting at the docks and the government is not launching the thing! The thing was built exactly for this kind of a situation.
While improvements continue to be made on the platform, the MDA said the SBX has “successfully met every operational test requirement to date.” To read more about this you can go to the Honolulu Advertiser.
Korea needs to prove their missile works to help the sale of one of their only exports missiles. What a perfect target us! We have every branch of military here & we’ve told them we won’t do anything! Even more shocking I find they are not warning people here to be prepared! I hope I’m wrong but with already a weekend military presence here from deployments it doesn’t look good especially when the government is not allowing us to use one of our only defenses.
SBX is docked because it doesn’t work very well.
A number of electrical systems are poorly wired,
the platform is not well rigged for
heavy weather, and the systems software and
integration is poor.
i suppose in 5-10 years it will be much better,
but, until then, it’s going to be in port a lot