CONSPIRACY THEORY????
US microwave LASER scrambled guidance computer on NK missile? This may have been reason for multiple missiles beign launched, LASER takes time to recharge and several of the missiles had guidance/stability malfunctions?
Balistic missil is at it's most venerable at slowes poing of path, just after lift off. Knowing flight path and with lots of time to get LASER ships in position. No wonder multiple guideance failures?
LASER would not even need ot penerate skin only short out a few chips on circuit boards. US would not want this known as Missiles could have hit Japan due to US intervention? NK scientists are now working on "shielding" for guidance system. So; next stage is to target LASER Destroyers with short range missiles or perhaps in an all out war, a Nuk of US ships in the Sea of Japan just before launch?
Sleep tight tonight our law enforcement is rounding up the Miami 7 for targeting the Sears tower, soon they will have need boots, prison issued and we all will sleep safe and sound. Sig Heil to Herr Gonzalez. Bob Morgan

Posted by: Bob Morgan at July 6, 2006 01:45 PM

Here's an aspect to this whole North Korean tale which no one will talk about and you have to wonder why. The man who spent BILLIONS successfully manipulating our political system to bring the hard right and theocratic to power IS involved in all aspects of this story.

Dear Leader's Paper Moon
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9868

Read section 17 here
http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/2004/10/independent-washington-times.html

and read all of this, this is the hot potato none of them will touch.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert356.shtml

Posted by: Nigel Nuedecker at July 6, 2006 12:26 AM

Kim Jong II needs income. The U.S. has effectively taken steps to blocks large amounts of revenue flowing to North Korea. If North Korea launches the missile, they can take orders worth tens of millions from the world's malcontents. If U.S. shoots it down- at any stage, the U.S. validates the potency of the North Korean missile as a threat. That makes it worth even more.

You don't want it to launch at all. So, naval maneuvers are held off North Korea and there is much media speculation about Ageis attacks. Bush activates his defense industry BMD boondoogle. During the distraction, three Stealth bombers fly over and pre-emptively nix the missile site.

Japan says, "Geez, glad the Ageis were there." Ignorant American public says, "Geez, glad Bush built the missile defense." Kim Jong II says, "Geez, I forgot about that option," and is reduced to taking orders for his nuclear weapons. The region is forced to concede that the U.S., not China is the ultimate power in the region. The rest of the world breaths a sigh of relief. What's not to like?

David

Posted by: David at June 24, 2006 12:50 AM

If they launch, it would actually be good for us.

Right now, we have very little information about
their launchers; being able to actually track a
launch would be a great practice and data
gathering opportunity. In fact, I'd be tempted
to burn off an interceptor just to get some nice,
close up, realistic tracking data.

As far as what to do if it is a satellite launch,
well, you don't HAVE to kill it. Just fly by nice
and close and show you could have. Or at least
that's our story if we miss :)

Posted by: Tim at June 21, 2006 11:48 PM

I am not going to be surprised if the US Navy goes after this launch, it is very, very rare the right collection of events occur where the Navy has this opportunity to grab some good PR, something the Navy needs right now under the budget crunches.

Think about it, the AEGIS system is very limited due to relatively short range of the SM-3. You have to have the right equipment in the right place at the right time to even use the AEGIS option, but thanks to good intel and bad weather, the US Navy has that exact scenario available.

While the SM-3 system is effective at terminal phases, it can also be effective during the launch phase if it can get close enough to the launch site. In this situation, the launch site is on the coast, in a known position, so the Navy can actually get in range of the launch site without violating treaties. The Navy also has had plenty of time to position their ships thanks to bad weather. The question is, do the 2 destroyers in the Sea of Japan have SM-3s onboard?

The only downside is the Navy option only exists if the US intends to shoot it down no matter what, because it would be hit during the launch phase before it reached higher altitude, which is before anyone could determine what the launch is all about. If the US intends to shoot the missile down no matter what, then the Navy option is best (and probably the only option unless North Korea really has gone insane), because it can hit the missile before it gets to Japan, Alaska, the West Coast, Guam, or the middle of the Pacific where interceptors are unlikely to be in range of the ICBM.

It isn't a perfect scenario for sure, but it is certainly an option if the US Navy is planning for it. At ~200 nautical miles from the North Korean coastline, due to the location of the launch site, 2 AEGIS ships should be able to guard the entire Japanese coastline and be in position to intercept during the launch phase of a high orbit ICBM tracking over Japan, assuming they get a good track during launch.

Posted by: Raymond P at June 21, 2006 09:36 AM

C-Low: valid questions, all.

None of which have much better answers with a missile defense shield, even if it did work.

Posted by: Edward Liu at June 20, 2006 10:30 PM

Now would be a good time to send up our new AirBourne Laser weapons system and fry that North Korean Bird in mid flight. It would be a good demonstration to the world that we had the technology to protect ourselves, and if for some reason it didn't work we could deny that we were ever there and try to figure out what went wrong.

Posted by: Dblhdr at June 20, 2006 06:25 PM

MAD

How exactly does that work against some of the Islamist death worshipers in the ME? How exactly does that play in a Kim about to be overthrown scenario? How exactly does that work in say a ballistic missile attack non-WMD like Saddam put on Iran during their war in the 80’s but on a US population center? How does that exactly work for our allies population centers on both WMD hits and or conventional? How does that work for the “rebel general” or even staged rebel general? How does MAD even work do we counter with total genocidal retaliation for all the above or limited or Fair? Does anyone really think if say Iran hits Kuwait with ballistic missile barrage (conventional) does MAD apply, how about Japan Tokyo? Does MAD apply if say Iran just threatens attack on Kuwaiti capitol for basing US soldiers? Do we offer Kuwait a MAD guarantee? Do you thing a small nation like Kuwait could even accept the risk of their population for what supporting US soldiers in return for a guarantee that we will MAD Iran if they hit them (flip that scenario would you support a leader that would risk half our population to support a British military base?)?

Our enemies are asking these same questions as above and keep in mind the actual answers in this case are not even as important as what our potential enemies think those answers maybe. Saddam didn’t think we would attack in GW1 nor GW2, AQ didn’t expect the response they got (paper tiger and all), and WW2 Japan thought we would make a negotiated settlement not full scale war. The point is MAD doesn’t work when there is doubt and Tin horn Dictators are well known for conclusions that are wrong. In MAD that Dictators miscalculation results in millions upon millions dead mostly on their side but still is that a reasonable stradegy for US to pursue when we could possible avoid such with BMD? If it woks it will be a great investment for peace and security if it fails it will join the many other failed ideas of military science, but is it not worth attempt? Millions of lives possibly on the line.

Like it or not the threat of using force is part of negotiations and if Kim can even possibly lob a nuke tipped Missile into Anchorage or Seattle Hawaii ect.. can a US threat of force even be made? Can we expect our allies to stand by US in say Qatar against an Iran when our only defense is MAD? Will you support a MAD response against Iran for a Chem/Bio attack on say Kuwait or UAE?

I don’t know about you guys but I would much rather see the Ballistic Missile weapons as viable options be eliminated. I would rather avoid having to make a MAD launch killing millions of innocents because their dictator didn’t want to go silently into the night or made a bad gamble.

If and like Noah mentioned If we can get the BMD to work it will change things across the board. We will be able to offer protection to allies in dangerous areas, it will seriously strengthen our negotiating hand while damaging our opponents, and the best is it will make Dictators not willing to pursue Ballistic Missiles to begin with when they are extremely expensive and useless against the West and her allies.

I do agree if we attempt a intercept it will be ship born BMD not Ground launched. I don't know if even Kim will risk lobbing a test missile into Alaska or even close to such.

Who knows?

Posted by: C-Low at June 20, 2006 05:50 PM

I'll second the general spirit of what Nah and sglover said, but I wanted to throw out one thing: if this missile does fly, and if we do try to intercept it, my money is on us going with Aegis, rather than GMD. This is because a) Aegis has shown itself less likely to embarrass us b) an Aegis SM-3 costs orders of magnitude less than a GMD interceptor and c) we'd want to show off our notional ability to protect Japan using Aegis ships in the Sea of Japan.

Posted by: Haninah at June 20, 2006 04:32 PM

C-Low, if someone attacks us with a ballistic missile, then we pummel the crap out of them, and they cease to be a threat. This inevitable reaction is what keeps tin-horn dictators from attacking us, not a hyper-expensive BMD system of dubious effectiveness.

Posted by: Nah at June 20, 2006 03:51 PM

"In one fail swoop the missile threat short mass assaults from either Russia or China is gone. In one fail swoop all those Tin Horn Dictators that spent their starving peoples rice quotas on that new slick long range missile to threaten the US and west is gone poof in a cloud of smoke. In an ever-increasing rate thereafter the threat from Russia and China becomes less and less. In one fail swoop everything changes and the crazed dictator holding the US pop hostage with ballistic missiles is gone good riddens."

First of all, the phrase is "one fell swoop": http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fel1.htm

Otherwise, even if your premise is correct (that the missile defense gadgetry will work as advertised), you seem to be gloating about hypothetical triumphs that went by the boards round about 1989. I'm not sure where you're getting these strange notions about the Russians and the Chinese brandishing their nuclear arsenals to get what they want. Perhaps you've been trapped in a time capsule, stocked with too many Tom Clancy books.....

Anyway, there's a lot of (fully justified) criticism of the vast expense of the boondoggle, but that's only one facet. The deeper reason for skepticism is that "missile defense" is a response to a problem that was solved decades ago, through MAD. Kim Jong-Il can rattle his (underwhelming) missiles all he wants; he knows that actually using them would be the last decision he'll ever make. Meanwhile, al Qaeda types can look at those useless interceptors buried in the permafrost, and laugh.

Posted by: sglover at June 20, 2006 03:30 PM

C: I think we'd all be beyond psyched if the GMD hit. But considering the track record, that doesn't seem particularly likely.

E: LOL!

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at June 20, 2006 03:29 PM

I can't believe they are STILL flogging this flying Maginot line crap.

Another waste of money.

Posted by: Sarge at June 20, 2006 03:20 PM

"What message do we send if we miss? If you work in the defense industry, then the message is clearly that we're not spending anywhere near enough on missile defense, but a few hundred trillion dollars more in the next defense budget will get us MUCH closer than we EVER were before. =8^)"

And don't forget, if the interceptor even clears its launcher, the missile defense crowd will call it a "near miss".

Posted by: sglover at June 20, 2006 03:12 PM

What are you guys going to do if WE HIT?

In one fail swoop the missile threat short mass assaults from either Russia or China is gone. In one fail swoop all those Tin Horn Dictators that spent their starving peoples rice quotas on that new slick long range missile to threaten the US and west is gone poof in a cloud of smoke. In an ever-increasing rate thereafter the threat from Russia and China becomes less and less. In one fail swoop everything changes and the crazed dictator holding the US pop hostage with ballistic missiles is gone good riddens.

Of course the more batty section the audience will scream ohhh the US will abuse this world dominating power ohhhh the real evil is US. Of course that negates the fact we are the only nation in the world that had the opportunity to conquer the entire world (WW2 45-55 we were the only Nuclear power with no rival short Russia who a handful of nukes would have salved in short order) but we not only passed we helped free most of the 3rd world from their colonial powers and even rebuild those same powers homelands.

BMD changes everything shifts the whole table. A true world turning event it would be.

Posted by: C-Low at June 20, 2006 03:12 PM

What message do we send if we miss? If you work in the defense industry, then the message is clearly that we're not spending anywhere near enough on missile defense, but a few hundred trillion dollars more in the next defense budget will get us MUCH closer than we EVER were before. =8^)

Posted by: Edward Liu at June 20, 2006 03:07 PM

---
"What message do we send if we miss?" he asks.
---

Why not send two, hehe.

Posted by: Harry Toor at June 20, 2006 02:49 PM