 |
| (CNN) A North Korean soldier guards an Uhna-3 rocket. North Korea successfully test-launched a similar missile on Dec 12, 2012. |
 |
| A test launch of U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor |
Under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, the DPRK has become increasingly belligerent as discussed in Brandon's previous post. North Korea (through the mouthpiece of their state-run news agency, Korean Central News Agency) has threatened both South Korea and the U.S. with the prospect of a preemptive nuclear attack.
Recently, the KN-08 was identified in a North Korean parade. This missile in mobile, making it harder to monitor than a stationary launch pad, and U.S. officials believe that it has the capability to reach the U.S. mainland. This, in addition to recent developments with North Korea, has led the Defense Department to re-evaluate their defense systems.
 |
| (BBC) Note that the different ranges are in reference to different missile models identified within the North Korean arsenal. |
So is this new investment really worthwhile? One billion dollars is a significant amount of money (for those having trouble visualizing what that entails, click here). However, it is a small fraction of the Defense Department's total budget, which has hovered around $680 billion in recent years. Do we feel safer with these defense systems in place?
It is worth noting that these 14 these interceptors will be deployed between now and the end of 2017. Do you think that these additional interceptors will be too late? Its difficult to imagine that relationships with North Korea won't change in the next four years, for better or worse. Or is it possible that nuclear warfare can be avoided entirely through diplomacy?
Clips from Hagel's statement are embedded within this CBS report (see below) or also available in more detail from BBC.
4 comments:
Clearly, North Korea poses a serious threat to America, and they actually might follow through this time. I think the investment on anti-ICBM systems is necessary but at the same time, it's a waste of money. North Korea hasn't shown much success in their missile program, so the chances of one of their missiles hitting an intended target seems relatively small. Besides, this investment seems a little too late already, when it seems like North Korea is going to launch a nuclear strike sometime next week...I'm exaggerating but you get the point. Diplomatic solutions also don't seem to be doing the trick now, so only time can tell what happens next.
While I think its important to take North Korea's threats seriously, I think the idea of North Korea actually managing to attack the west coast with ICBMs is absurd. The North Korean government is always making threats towards the US, South Korea, and our allies that are usually just meant to convince other countries to negotiate things like aid with them. I don't think that the US is ramping up our anti-ICBM system out of fear of an actual attack as that is extremely unlikely. I think it has a lot more to do with politics in the region as a whole; specifically with China. A senior white house official stated that "We want to make it clear that there's a price to be paid for letting the North Koreans stay on the currently path"(1). One of the main goals of ramping up the anti-ICBM system is to pressure China to take a tougher stance on North Korea. The chinese government definitely doesn't want to see the US military increase its presence in the region in the name of defending itself from North Korea. I feel like the US is expanding its security against North Korea because in addition to providing security from North Korea, it pushes the Chinese government to put pressure on the North Korean government to stop the expansion of the US military in the region. The US knows it can't do much to stop North Korea, but China, as North Korea's largest trading parter, can and will.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/world/asia/us-to-bolster-missile-defense-against-north-korea.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Do we FEEL safer with these defense systems in place? Sure. Are we actually safer with them? Debatable. Instead of spending money right now to implement these systems, shouldn’t we first focus on developing the effectiveness of the technology? I’d hate to see the U.S. spend billions of dollars on shaky defense mechanisms only to eventually see them fail in the face of an attack from North Korea. Then, not only are will we be in debt, but we’ll have to deal with a great deal of vulnerability and embarrassment. In my opinion, the U.S. should hold out, especially given the delayed nature of when the missile interceptors will be deployed – and the fact that we already have 30 in California!
On one hand, I can see how the U.S. is open to experimentation – very open considering that $1 billion is a mere 1/680 of the U.S. Defense Department’s average total budget, yet on the other hand, funding additional missile interceptors seems like an incredible security overkill, waste of money, and poor and untimely bet considering North Korea’s current belligerence which is subject to vary by 2017.
North Korea has been threatening attack on other nations for a long time now, but especially after its underground nuclear weapons test in February, it seems to be only a matter of time before North Korea will actually be able to successfully carry out their threats.
As for America's $1 billion expansion of missile interceptors, I appreciate that the government is taking measures to protect its citizens from an attack (especially for us on the West Coast, who live closest to North Korea). However, building up our defense weapons in reaction to North Korea's threats reminds me a bit of the deterrence theory during the Cold War, where each side continued building up their nuclear weapons in response to tension from the opposing side. Although it's still on a relatively small scale, history tells us that this approach will not work as a good response for every threat from North Korea.
Post a Comment