House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explains how the alleged nuclear and missile tests conducted by North Korea has reinforced Sino-American cooperation against nuclear proliferation. Pelosi adds that China acknowledges North Korea as a threat to North East Asia. (0:40)
Former Secretary of Defense William Perry explains the dangerous of nuclear proliferation. Perry says that there is a risk that North Korea will leak fissile materials. In addition, Perry mentions the strategy to follow in order to avoid these leaks. (0:43)
By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service
Celia Canon talks to Bruce Klingner, an analyst for the Heritage Foundation, about North Korea’s recent underground nuclear tests and what can be done to halt Pyong Yang’s recent acceleration in its technological developments and trials. Klingner insists that China will be pivotal is sanctioning and stopping North Korea’s nuclear program.
However, Klingner also warns that this will not be an easy task, but that the government needs to stop praising China for its efforts when it could really do much more to involve itself in the international community’s sanctions. (1:01)
Even through failure progress can be achieved, as the North Koreans succeeded even though their missile, launched in April 2009, failed to break through Earth’s atmosphere. The missile transitioned to the second-stage of a three-stage rocket, which was a great improvement over the 2006 launch, which failed to get pass the first-stage. The rocket traveled some 3,000 km before it failed and landed harmlessly in the ocean.
“It was not as successful as it could have been,” said Dr. Bruce Bechtol, a professor of International Relations at US Marine Corps Command and Staff College, who continued to say that it was “certainly not as successful as the North Koreans wanted it to be, but it was far more successful than the 2006 launch.”
Many theories have been given as to why North Korea decided to launch their Taepodong-2 missile at this time. Some of the most popular explanations include,
include, the testing the Obama administration and its willingness to take a hardline stance against such brash actions or an attempt to legitimize the rule of the sickly Kim Jong-Il. Yet, according to Bechtol, all of these reasons are ancillary to the fact that the North Koreans launched the missile “because it was ready.”
However, North Korea poses a larger threat to an area far removed from Northeast Asia–the Middle East. North Korea has sold a reported $1.5 billion worth of ballistic missiles, according to the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis 2009 report, making them the largest seller of these weapons in the world.
Bechtol identified a troubling trend–the alliance between the Iranians and North Koreans. “There were Iranian engineers, technicians and dignitaries present at this launch, as there were at the launches in 2006, 1998 and 1993,” said Bechtol. Thus, a link between the Iranians and North Koreans is not merely plausible, but probable.
Concluding his statement, Bechtol gave his personal prediction for the future of North Korean missile tests. Bechtol believes that “the North Koreans will conduct another long-range missile test in the future no matter what the geopolitical context is in Northeast Asia.”
Nicholas Eberstad, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, disagrees with Ambassador Bosworth’s belief that America must negotiate with North Korea after their recent missile test. Eberstad thinks that such talks will be counterproductive in the long-run, could lead to even greater problems. (0:49)
by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service
The planned rocket launch in defiance of international law by North Korea should not hinder U.S. hopes of achieving the peaceful denuclearization of the North, an opinion backed by senior-level U.S. diplomats.
“Korea and the U.S. are fully at one voice now in tackling the North Korea missile launch and also in pushing forward the six-party process,” said Han Duk-soo, Korean Ambassador to the United States.
“The six-party talks should be promoted. That is at present the only alternative to the peaceful denuclearization of North Korea,” said Han Duk-soo. “Peace and security and prosperity in this region is very crucial not only for this region but also for the global community.”
Lee Ki-Taek, Vice Chairman of the National Unification Advisory Council said that the launch was a threat. But “It does not matter whether it was a satellite or missile for it was clearly not hope,”he said.
Charles L. Pritchard, President of the Korea Economic Institute in Washington, D.C. said that the Obama administration has shown a “conservative” response to what’s been going on with North Korea.
“The United States, it has been said here already, intends to maintain the six-party talks as the basis of engagement of North Korea. That may not turn out to be quite as accurate as they hoped,” Pritchard said.
Pritchard said that the U.S. has made an emphasis on bilateral ties, and has been directly engaged in the consultation process with North Korea and Japan.
Pritchard suggested that the continuation of the tri-lateral coordination is necessary, but that the idea of withholding visas for North Koreans as a form of punishment should be tossed out the window.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that, “we are concerned about the Iranian missile threat and as long as that threat exists we will continue to pursue missile defense.” He goes on to say that, “we want to pursue it in partnership not only with our NATO allies but also with the Russians.”
We must take the missile threat from Iran seriously.
Such was the statement of Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. General Henry A. “Trey” Obering III at a Missile Defense Status briefing at the Pentagon. Iran, he says, is working on an extended-range variant of the Shahab-3 missile and a new 2,000 km medium-range ballistic missile known as the “Ashura.” Iran is acquiring “advanced ballistic missile capabilities,” and they’re doing it with foreign assistance and an “aggressive development and test program.”
So what was Iran testing last week? Intelligence provides that info, Obering said, but the Iranians themselves are the ones providing the information. Although this may call into question the accuracy of the information due to bias, Obering said that based on what he has seen, they [Iran] have the capability to have long range missiles. And by having Iran talk about the possibility of a space launch brings to mind something else: the ability to have an umbrella of cover under which they could make booster missiles capable of traveling intercontinental distances.
The thought of a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States from Iran strikes fear into the heart of every American, and Obering stressed that this is the very reason the missile defense system in Europe is needed. Based on azimuth trajectories (the arc a missile would have to travel in order for it to intercept another target), we need radar detection in the Czech Republic, and our actual interceptors located in Poland. Any closer, and they could not travel the proper trajectory to destroy an enemy missile in time to avoid significant damage.
But what if the attack isn’t nuclear, and is, in fact, an EMP? EMP’s are missiles that deploy an electromagnetic pulse, capable of disabling electronics across a large area. The amount of disabling caused is proportional to how close it is to the target when it goes off, hence the desire to intercept those types of missiles as far above the ground as possible. The House Armed Services Committee discussed that threat and said the potential damage would be significant.
The United States has eighteen nations around the globe that we can do missile defense interaction with. “It’s not the United States only” that is concerned, and there are a growing number of nations that want defense. Placing our interceptors in Poland is where it makes the most sense. Although Russia says that we’re exaggerating a missile threat from Iran, and has also come to a misconception that we are pointing missiles at Russia themselves, there are three fundamental problems with that theory. One, the angle of the missiles would actually fire them 256 kilometers into space if they went all the way to their apex, two, interceptors don’t carry the same payload such as an actual destructive missiles does- they’re only designed to hit things that do have that payload, and make them explode on themselves, and three, a European interceptor site (up to 10 interceptors) “would be easily overwhelmed by Russia’s strategic missiles force,” should we fire at them.
Russia, apparently, has been invited to “come have a look,” and we’ve made a proposal: we will set the defense system up but we won’t bring it completely operational unless the Iranian threat emerges. Obering said that an Iranian threat has emerged when there is proof they have the capability to fire off a missile that can travel 2,000 – 2,500 kilometers, and, if we wait till they actual fire off those missiles, it’s too late to get our own defenses up to defend against it. There is the need to be ready now, not later. Yes, Obering said, they [Iran] have long-range missiles.
Tests have been conducted utilizing missiles fired at the proper trajectories from Alaska and California, to emulate an actual airstrike. Obering said they’re concerned that Iran and North Korea will develop the ability to counteract our defense, and shoot our interceptors down before they can do what they are meant to do: protect. That is why by the end of this year we hope to have two tracking satellites that can track launched missiles more precisely than we do with our current ground radar, such as the one located in Japan. Since we have fielded an initial capability to defend the United States against ballistic missile attacks, we must take into account future uncertainties. Right now, we’re hitting our targets within centimeters from where we’re aiming.
