CPLHUNTER
06-22-2006, 12:55 PM
So we don't have a launch yet, but apparently this genius thinks we should attack. Why not, the third war should be the charm ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton defense secretary William Perry is ready to attack North Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html), now.
Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?... If North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.
But there's a teeny-tiny fact Perry seems to have overlooked: We have no idea, really, whether North Korea is preparing a missile. Or what that missile is capable of doing.
The hype kicked into high gear when the New York Times claimed that the Norks "completed fueling a long-range ballistic missile (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/asia/19korea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)" over the weekend. But the report is getting fishier by the second. The Norks generally rely on a highly corrosive gasoline-kerosene mix (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-1-specs.htm) for their missile fuel, and an oxidizer containing nitric acid. It's nasty, metal-eating stuff. And once fueled up, the missile has to be launched quickly -- two or three days, I've been told -- or else the missile is basically ruined.
It's now been four days. And there's been no launch. Which means it's becoming increasingly unlikely that a missile has been fueled. So much for Perry's demand "to strike the [missile] if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out."
And, of course, there may not be an ICBM at all. Remember, the North Koreans have launched exactly one intermediate-range ballistic missile, in 1998. The thing -- a combination of smaller, Nodong and Scud missiles -- went about 2,000 km or so. Now, U.S. intelligence assumes the Norks have been working on strapping together more Nodongs and Scuds (or, at least, their engines) for an ICBM -- something that can reach three to five times further, and hit the U.S. But no one has actually seen the weapon. Even how many the stages the mystery missile has in unknown; some folks say two, others say three.
Plus, as the Post mentioned a few days back, Pyongyang has a long history of staging elaborate hoaxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900707.html), in order to get the world's attention.
A year ago, the world was on edge after reports that North Korea might test a nuclear weapon -- and one report even suggested the evidence showed that viewing stands had been built. No test took place.
Now, what happens if we strike North Korea -- and there's no missile to hit? What does that do to American standing, then?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton defense secretary William Perry is ready to attack North Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html), now.
Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?... If North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.
But there's a teeny-tiny fact Perry seems to have overlooked: We have no idea, really, whether North Korea is preparing a missile. Or what that missile is capable of doing.
The hype kicked into high gear when the New York Times claimed that the Norks "completed fueling a long-range ballistic missile (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/asia/19korea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)" over the weekend. But the report is getting fishier by the second. The Norks generally rely on a highly corrosive gasoline-kerosene mix (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-1-specs.htm) for their missile fuel, and an oxidizer containing nitric acid. It's nasty, metal-eating stuff. And once fueled up, the missile has to be launched quickly -- two or three days, I've been told -- or else the missile is basically ruined.
It's now been four days. And there's been no launch. Which means it's becoming increasingly unlikely that a missile has been fueled. So much for Perry's demand "to strike the [missile] if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out."
And, of course, there may not be an ICBM at all. Remember, the North Koreans have launched exactly one intermediate-range ballistic missile, in 1998. The thing -- a combination of smaller, Nodong and Scud missiles -- went about 2,000 km or so. Now, U.S. intelligence assumes the Norks have been working on strapping together more Nodongs and Scuds (or, at least, their engines) for an ICBM -- something that can reach three to five times further, and hit the U.S. But no one has actually seen the weapon. Even how many the stages the mystery missile has in unknown; some folks say two, others say three.
Plus, as the Post mentioned a few days back, Pyongyang has a long history of staging elaborate hoaxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900707.html), in order to get the world's attention.
A year ago, the world was on edge after reports that North Korea might test a nuclear weapon -- and one report even suggested the evidence showed that viewing stands had been built. No test took place.
Now, what happens if we strike North Korea -- and there's no missile to hit? What does that do to American standing, then?
---------------------------------------------------------------------