by CKR
Ashton Carter and William Perry today advocate striking North Korea's missile on the ground before it can be tested. It's not at all clear what is being tested or why. The timing of the test suggests that its primary function is to draw attention back to North Korea from Iran, or perhaps to make the point that North Korea is looking for some aspect of what has been offered to Iran.
Nonetheless, Carter and Perry take the test at face value and believe what the hitherto unreliable North Koreans say: that they are developing their missile capability. It's certainly possible that they will get some data out of the test, but that just doesn't look like their primary objective to me, anyway.
The United States, in a literalistic response, has declared that its uncompleted antimissile system in Alaska and California is now on full alert to shoot down any missiles aimed at America.
Carter and Perry argue that the missile should be taken out on the launch pad. Their reason is clear:
Third, the U.S. system is unproven against North Korean missiles and has had an uneven record in its flight tests. A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever deterrent value our missile defense may have.Kindly put, and to the point. Threatening with something that is likely not to work is a way to make a fool of oneself, and the history of missile defense so far allows no confidence that an attempted interception would work.
But isn't all this flurry of indignation and upset exactly what North Korea wants? It makes them look powerful, it exposes the uncertainty of US missile defense, and it redirects attention from Iran.
We're negotiating with the North Koreans. Their bluff is uncalled for, but so is this excessive US response. Yes, a nuclear weapon might be mated to one of their missiles at some time in a very indefinite future. Although the North Koreans have manufactured enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons, there is no, zero, indication that they have managed to produce a weapon other than their sayso. A weapon small enough to be mated to one of their missiles is even further in the future.
If we hit the missile on its pad, the North Koreans will have an excuse to end talks. What then are the US optiions? Further military strikes? Haven't we been through that argument and figured out that our allies, South Korea and Japan, are very, very close to North Korea and could be done some significant harm?
If North Korea launches the missile and we launch a defensive missile which blows up long before it reaches its target, falls in the sea, or simply misses, then we've proved our missile defense doesn't work.
Neither option would make the US look particularly good.
Has there been a firm objection quietly delivered through diplomatic channels? That would be a more serious (and probably effective) response than all this sword-rattling. Or does the militarization of US foreign policy preclude that?
Arms Control Wonk has several posts containing helpful background information on the test and the American response.
And yet more from the LA Times:
program officials were so concerned with potential flaws in the first nine interceptors now in operation that they considered taking them out of their silos and returning them to the manufacturer for "disassembly and remanufacture."
Diplomatic background from The Guardian.
Or is all the Amercian noise just another convenient Bushian changing of the subject?