Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Counter North Korea's Growing Missile Threat
Human Events ^ | 07/08/06 | Baker Spring

Posted on 07/10/2006 12:30:53 AM PDT by garbageseeker

Starting on the Fourth of July, North Korea launched a salvo of seven short-, medium- and long-range missiles. Despite the failure of the single long-range missile, the Taepo Dong-2, the launches confirmed that North Korea is seeking to advance its missile arsenal in order to threaten both the United States and its allies in Asia.

The short- and medium-range missiles, the Scud and No Dong respectively, all flew in the direction of Japan, so it seems that North Korea is focused on achieving a military capability to threaten Japan in particular. It remains unclear at this point whether North Korea can arm its missile arsenal with nuclear warheads. While North Korea is openly pursuing nuclear weapons and is thought to have a small number of such weapons, mating these weapons to ballistic missile delivery systems requires additional technological steps.

The U.S., in partnership with its allies, needs a comprehensive set of military options to counter North Korea’s growing missile threat. The need for a comprehensive set of options is necessary because North Korea’s pursuit of ballistic missiles complements other military capabilities, including aggressively deployed conventional forces and nuclear weapons. Moreover, North Korea is known for its erratic behavior.

Only a comprehensive set of U.S. and allied options will address the full array of military capabilities North Korea is pursuing and serve to reduce the likelihood of aggression. Similarly, a comprehensive set of options will provide President Bush and allied leaders with the flexibility they need to respond militarily to an unpredictable North Korean regime.

(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: carter; clinton; clintonlegacy; dmz; geopolitics; korea; koreanpeninsula; missile; missiledefense; missiles; nk; nmd; nodong; northkorea; nucleardeterrence; preemption; proliferation; rodong; scud; scudandnodong; southkorea; taepodong2

1 posted on 07/10/2006 12:30:58 AM PDT by garbageseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker

well. we would win...but it'll be very very bloody. seoul can be hit from the dmz....hard to imagine any system that could stop a majority of rounds from 1000s of guns. no, the only way to spare seoul would be a preemptive massive instantaneous strike on the n k front lines...probably tac nuke...this sounds like hell...but victory is essential


2 posted on 07/10/2006 12:57:19 AM PDT by wildcatf4f3 (high compression hothead here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildcatf4f3

So, this would be the salvation of Seoul? /pun

Anyhow, would setting off nukes on NK's end of the DMZ produce effects that Seoul/Incheon would not want. Such as an excessive dose of radiation, or a blast wave.


3 posted on 07/10/2006 1:07:15 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

I know....I think seoul would be lost whether we win or lose.....and it is terrible...kim knows this of course...its part of his gameplan...best thing really is to off kim jong il.


4 posted on 07/10/2006 2:04:20 AM PDT by wildcatf4f3 (high compression hothead here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker
A key element of the new policy is the recognition that the threat of widespread destruction in North Korea has little deterrence value to a leadership that has no concern for the well-being of its populace. The U.S. nuclear deterrent needs to be capable of holding targets at risk that are valued by the North Korea leadership as means for personal and regime survival.
Bunker Busters.
5 posted on 07/10/2006 3:12:48 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker
How about reminding China that they have the Olympics in 2008 and if the United States determines that China is not doing enough to help provide a stable region we will choose not to participate.
6 posted on 07/10/2006 5:20:51 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garbageseeker
Starting on the Fourth of July, North Korea launched a salvo of seven short-, medium- and long-range missiles.

Just a little correction here. If memory serves me right, none of the N.K. missiles actually traveled during the 4th of July. I am fairly certain they were launched on July 5th and landed or crashed on July 5th Local (Sea of Japan) Time.

However if Kim is still obsessed with the date July 5th, perhaps we can celebrate that date in the future as the annual Independence Day celebration for Korea ? Obviously Korea will have to win its independence from China beforehand.

7 posted on 07/10/2006 5:22:18 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

That can work. We boycotted the 1980 Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.


8 posted on 07/10/2006 5:12:56 PM PDT by garbageseeker (It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.”Samuel Clemmens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson