What to Do About North Korean Missile Test?
James Robbins has an interesting idea of how the U.S. could respond to the promised DPRK test of their long range Taepodong-2 missile:
If the North Koreans follow tradition, they will test their new long range missile by firing it through the air space of another country, probably Japan, maybe the U.S. too if they can reach Alaska. Sounds like a great opportunity to test our missile -defense technology. North Korea has no right to test weapons over other countries, so they won’t have a leg to stand on legally. And it would be a great statement of our resolve to stand up to their aggressive behavior. Finally, it would be a high-profile way to demonstrate the effectiveness of our missile-defense systems.
Kevin Drum is intrigued by the idea as is Andrew Olmstead, who adds,
It would be as close to a real-world conditions test as we’re likely to get, it would allow us to see what we’re getting for our money, and advocates of missile defense could use the North Korean test as fodder to maintain support for the program. Even if it failed, that would be a prime opportunity to demagogue the issue and argue that we need to focus more heavily on missile defense because the next missile might not be a test.
I think “Even if” is a rather generous qualifier to “it failed.” I’d go with “Its almost certain failure….” Still, he’s right about the propaganda value in the event of a neutral failure.
Such a move could backfire horribly, however. Both a “successful” and a failed attempt to shoot down the DPRK missile could wind up killing people. One only has to remember back to the 1991 Gulf War, when American Patriot missiles shot down Iraqi scuds but quite likely killed many more people than saved by sending huge pieces of shrapnel into innocent population centers. It’s far from inconceivable that could happen in this case. And, of course, missile tests often reveal that the missile is not ready for prime time, as demonstrated by the missile not hitting its intended target. Presumably, this threat could be substantially mitigated by targetting the Korean missile while it’s still over the ocean. It could not be totally eliminated, however.
Related Posts
- None Found
About James Joyner
support for the program. Even if it failed, that would be a prime opportunity to demagogue the issue and argue that we need to focus more heavily on missile defense because the next missile might not be a test. Update: James Joyner notes that a more accurate turn of phrase would have been ‘When it fails’ rather than ‘Even if it failed,’ a good point unless missile defense has made some quantum leaps in secret. Posted at 10:58 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
is simply this: The U.S. was vulnerable. The emerging missile defense system is making that less true, and a North Korean test launch is an ideal time to demonstrate that we are willing and able to defend ourselves.It sounds good to me.James Joyner and Blue Crab Boulevard anticipate problems.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
What should we do about the North Korean ICBM test?…
As I’m sure you must know North Korea plans to test fire a missile thought to be able to strike the continental United States:
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned North Korea on Monday it will face consequences if it test-fire…
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] I’ve suggested that myself from time to time. James Joyner quite correctly wonders if the cost of failure in such a course might well outweigh the benefit of a success (or even a “neutral failure”): Such a move could backfire horribly, however. Both a “successful†and a failed attempt to shoot down the DPRK missile could wind up killing people. One only has to remember back to the 1991 Gulf War, when American Patriot missiles shot down Iraqi scuds but quite likely killed many more people than saved by sending huge pieces of shrapnel into innocent population centers. It’s far from inconceivable that could happen in this case. And, of course, missile tests often reveal that the missile is not ready for prime time, as demonstrated by the missile not hitting its intended target. Presumably, this threat could be substantially mitigated by targetting the Korean missile while it’s still over the ocean. It could not be totally eliminated, however. [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Personally, I would do a “secret” test.
If it failed, keep it secret.
If it succeeded, decide to either announce it or keep quiet and let the NK wonder what happened to their missile.
I don’t see much value in a public test. It would allow the NK a chance to gather data on our anti-missile technology.
This reminds me of the story about a missile launch that was done in the 60′s. There were supposed to be three missiles launched though that was not known by the press covering the test. After the second missile launched there was a delay. Then the quick thinking lieutenant escorting the press turned to the press corps and announced that this concluded the demonstration and if they will get on the bus, he will take them to a reception for refreshments and they can ask questions there. It wasn’t until years later that the failure to launch of the third missile became known.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Rice Warns North Korea Not to Test Long-Range Missile…
North Korea loaded fuel into a long-range ballistic missile, a Bush administration official said Mon…
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
What about the Boeing 747 outfitted with the lases technology to blast a missile out of the sky ?
If that worked, NK would be scratching their heads.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] I liken this potential showdown in terms of something most of us have experienced: a gradeschool playground bully. If a bully rears his arm back to throw a punch at you, do you try to block it and suffer the impending fight or do you let him go and just hope he is feigning aggression to simply ridicule you in front of your friends? [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Since there is very little chance of a successful missile intercept, I think the government would be stupid to try. It would only lead to embarrassment for the US, and a strong propaganda point for the DPRK. The Airborne Laser is also just a project in development, and not ready to intercept an actual missile.
If the US is truly worried about what a successful DPRK missile launch could mean, their best option is to use a stealth UAV to take out the missile sometime between fueling and launch (I’m assuming we know where it is). This would allow us to play it off as an engineering accident to avoid raising tensions, while at the same time sending the strong message that we can incapacitate them at any time (because nobody in the DPRK would believe it was an accident).
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
From what I am reading, the US government is “making the 11 anti-ballistic missiles operational”, but not confirming if they will shoot.
As far as the airborne laser, I believe it has concluded its ground trials, but the first airborne trial won’t be until this Fall. It would have the advantage of being able to shoot the missile down while still over NK territory.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
if they use north korea for missle testing, should we?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Should We Try to Shoot Down the NK Missile?…
Via the AP: U.S. weighs shootdown of N. Korea missile
If North Korea launches a long-range missile, as some U.S. officials say appears likely, then the Pentagon may get a first chance to use its unproven missile defenses against a real target.
One wo…
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0