North Korea is expected to deploy a nuclear-tipped missile capable of reaching parts of the United States in the next decade, despite two long-range missile flight-test failures, according to the Pentagon's ballistic-missile defense review.
The review report, made public this week, concluded that missile threats from several states, including Iran, Syria, China and Russia, are growing "quantitatively and qualitatively," and it outlined Pentagon plans for silo-based and mobile anti-missile systems to counter them.
On North Korea, the report disclosed for the first time the U.S. intelligence estimate of when Pyongyang will be able to reach the technically challenging threshold of producing a nuclear device small enough to be carried on a missile.
"We must assume that sooner or later, North Korea will have a successful test of its Taepodong-2 and, if there are no major changes in its national security strategy in the next decade, it will be able to mate a nuclear warhead to a proven delivery system," the report said.
U.S. intelligence officials said North Korea was one of at least three states — along with Libya and Iran — that benefited from the spread of nuclear technology provided by the network of suppliers headed by Pakistani technician A.Q. Khan. Included with that assistance and discovered when Libya gave up its Khan-supplied nuclear goods were Chinese-language documents on how to make a warhead for a missile, the officials have said.
U.S. intelligence agencies suspect but have not confirmed that North Korea also obtained the warhead-design documents from Mr. Khan.
North Korea's two underground nuclear tests and its development of long-range missiles is a major worry, the report said, noting that Iran also is developing long-range missiles.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in Senate testimony this week that the Pentagon is seeking $8.4 billion for missile defenses under what he described as a phased plan to shift the focus from larger ground-based long-range interceptors to shorter-range missile defenses, like the Navy's SM-3 ship-based missile interceptor.
"We have deployed ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely [in Alaska]. We have a very aggressive test program that has been successful. We believe that those interceptors give us the capability to deal with launches from either Iran or North Korea, a small-scale threat," Mr. Gates said.
Chuck Downs, a former Pentagon official and specialist on North Korea, said the North Korean drive for a long-range nuclear missile is part of Pyongyang's objective of being able to threaten the United States.
"They are a regime that has already relied on coercive threats, with their own people, with their neighbors and with the United States," he said.
Developing a nuclear-tipped Taepodong will be "the high point of their military development program," said Mr. Downs, head of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. "It should come as no surprise that they are seeking to develop this missile."
A defense official said the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress last year that North Korea may be able to mate a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile, noting that the Taepodong would be nuclear-capable. Additionally, DIA has stated that "North Korea could have several nuclear warheads capable of delivery by ballistic missiles."
"We have publicly stated that North Korea has a theoretical capability to produce a warhead and mate it with a missile, but we have no information to suggest they have done so," the official said.
Five years ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a U.S. senator from New York, made headlines when she asked DIA director Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby during a hearing whether North Korea had a nuclear warhead small enough to be carried on a missile. Adm. Jacoby said yes, but a Pentagon spokesman said later that officials did not know whether Pyongyang has a nuclear missile warhead capability.
The report said it was difficult to predict when the missile threat to the U.S. homeland will evolve, "but it is certain that it will do so."
Iran, meanwhile, announced Wednesday that it had conducted a rocket launch to place a satellite into orbit, a move that the White House called provocative.
North Korea's April 2009 Taepodong test failed to orbit a small communications satellites, but showed that Pyongyang has developed "many technologies associated with an [intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)]," the report said.
The missile-defense report outlines the Obama administration's plan for stepping up the deployment of short- and medium-range missile defenses, specifically to counter Iranian missiles.
"North Korea and Iran have shown contempt for international norms, pursued illicit weapons programs in defiance of the international community, and have been highly provocative in both their actions and statements," the report said. "They have exploited the capabilities available to them to threaten others."
Regional neighbors of both states may be limited in their actions and pursuit of interests because of the missile threat.
"Deterrence is a powerful tool, and the United States is seeking to strengthen deterrence against these new challenges," the report said. "But deterrence by threat of a strong offensive response may not be effective against these states in a time of political-military crisis. Risk-taking leaders may conclude that they can engage the United States in a confrontation if they can raise the stakes high enough by demonstrating the potential to do further harm with their missiles. Thus, U.S. missile defenses are critical to strengthening regional deterrence."
Iran has not stated its plan to build ICBMs, but the report said it continues to "pursue long-range ballistic missiles," including the Safir space launcher that was used in August 2008 and February 2009 to launch satellites.
Current U.S. missile-defense systems include 30 ground-based long-range interceptors in Alaska and California, ground-based mobile Patriot and Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems and the Navy's SM-3 anti-missile interceptor, based on Aegis warships.
In the next several years, the Pentagon plans to develop and deploy several advanced variants of the SM-3 missile, including a ground-based version in Poland.
The report said the most advanced SM-3 will have some capability to knock out long-range missile warheads and will be ready for use in "the 2020 time frame."
The Obama administration canceled a plan to deploy long-range interceptors in Poland after Russia opposed the interceptor base and a related radar planned for the Czech Republic.
Instead, the administration will use ships deployed in waters closer to Iran to counter Iranian medium-range missiles, as well as interceptors in Poland to protect the Continent.
Critics of the scaled-back missile-defense plan say abandoning the proposal for stationing long-range missile interceptors in Europe will increase the U.S. vulnerability to a future Iranian missile strike on the United States.
14 comments:
If Iran and North Korea voice that they have nuclear missiles, would a Cold War start, or would we have a full-blown Nuclear War?
i think its sad that the us created the nuclear bomb in the frist place and now it might come back to bite us in the but. we have so many enimies out there that can use it against us. Karma is coming back on the us it sucks beacuse who knows what the future holds for us as a country.
The thing to do with North Korea is to go ahead and bomb their plants. We know where they are. We can bomb their capitol. Convince them to stop through destroying their economy. We would never have to place a man on the ground. As far as Iran is concerned, it took us 8 hours to sink their Navy. They fly our old F-14s. We taught their pilots and their military. Our strategy has evolved and we could own them in a matter of hours. We should invade, remove their leadership and leave. If not, bomb them until they stop as well. China and Russia are a problem but Russia still doesn't have the economy to wage a war and china's military force is just numbers. If we can produce enough bullets and napalm, we could take them both down. But in the end, it is actually doubtful that anyone will launch, knowing that they will be annihlated themselves.
The problem i see is that unlike the cold war, these missiles will be coming from different countries. We can't simply look at it as we are against the commie Ivan. Now we have to deal with the crazies in Korea, haji bob in Iran and Syria, the chinese, and crazy ivan all at once! What makes it worse is that each of these countries has different view points. While the chinese and Koreans think on a different level in terms of government and can at least be reasoned with, Iran is controlled by a behind the scenes theocracy that seems to be set on destroying us at all costs! The number of countries will spread out our forces since we are supposed to be using ships off the countries coasts to shoot down the missiles. That's hard enough to do as is, and to do it effectively it won't be cheap. God help us
I don't think we should spend millions of dollars on a missile defense system. It's like we want someone to launch ICBM's at us. If we want to end the nuclear programs of countries like Iran, Syria, and N. Korea, the thing to do would be simply nuke them. Problem solved. And It would save a lot of time and money.
As the power of tyrants rises so to does the risk of attack. That is well known. The fact that North Korea is gaining the capability to attack the United States is less well known but thoroughly predictable. I do agree that it is important to have missile defense systems, but we must find measures of preventing actual warfare rather than just its effects. It is obvious the sanctions in place are not working. They are aptly staving the people of North Korea, but doing nothing to deter military growth. The thing a dictator craves the most is recognition. When we refuse contact with dictators, they go to greater measures for attention. This includes building nuclear weapons. It is obvious that ignoring and sanctioning this country will not work. We must find solutions, preferably diplomatic, to this growing problem.
Isn't it a really bad idea to make public how many ground based missile defense systems we have and which states we keep them in?
This really just futhers the idea that America is the greatest country in the world. We bully everyone and do whatever we want to. Iran and North Korea can try to mess with Amreica but it will just become fatal.
This really just futhers the idea that America is the greatest country in the world. We bully everyone and do whatever we want to. Iran and North Korea can try to mess with Amreica but it will just become fatal.
Well this is a most distressing topic. Although missile testing and flight-launches have so far been unsuccessful, with the amount of countries working on such projects and trechnology's current state of advancement, I agree that at somepoint in the near future, a flight launch will be successful and majorly destructive. The problem is how to stop this attack once launced. Repressing the knowledge and technology that makes this creation possible doesn't really work. But fighting fire with fire, like it seems yhr Pentagon wants, is also not the best plan and could end up possibly more destructive. Most people learn about the cold war if they don't remember from personal experience. The paranoia on such a mass level made tense political matters much worse. Do we really want that to happen again?
...it seems that more and more countries will be able to use nuclear mussiles, is the WW3 about to happen? Or they will just use them for defense according to what they said....bs?...
The missile-defense plan should not be scaled-back and that we should do everything possible to ensure the protection of the american people.
The future ruler of the world seems to be based on who can fire a missle further. Instead of making the future easier and better to live, Technology advancement now must be geared towards missle defenses and making the better warhead. Every country seems to feel antsy about another country making a missle. Although I feel that the whole world should give up on the furthering of missle devolpement, I understand that that will missle development will never deplete so I agree with the Pentagon's trying to strengthen deterrence against new challenges. Let's just hope that the we will never have to use them.
This article is a little frightening, although not surprising. The United States makes themselves a target for all these countries by becoming involvd with everyones business. Stationing the long-range missile interceptors in Europe might protect us for a while but eventually these countries are going to get tired of us, push our threats away, and attack as regardless of their consequences. I feel like our country needs to do the best it can at protecting our country from terrorists, while at the same time staying out of other countries' affairs.
Post a Comment