Dealing with one nuclear adversary could thwart the other’s ambitions.
Twice in the last week, North Korea has attempted to launch its new “Musudan” ballistic missile. Both launches failed, but according to a new report from a Johns Hopkins think tank, the missile could be perfected and operational next year — several years sooner than expected. “The North Koreans aren’t simply repeating old failures,” the report declares. “And they aren’t taking the slow path to developing a reliable system, with a year or so between each test to analyze the data and make improvements. . . . Instead, they are continuing with an aggressive test schedule. . . . Professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong. [The North Koreans] are still practicing.”
The Musudan missile will be able to reach Guam, and Japan, and according to reports of North Korean nuclear-miniaturization research, it could be nuclear-armed.
In 2006, when North Korea was preparing to test its Taepodong 2 intercontinental ballistic missile — which it has since successfully adapted to launch satellites, and which it could in future arm with nuclear weapons — current Obama defense secretary Ash Carter and former Clinton defense secretary William Perry called for a preemptive strike to destroy it: “We cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature,” they wrote:
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. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. . . . The effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea’s nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted.
Needless to say, no such preemptive strike occurred, and now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, it might not be prudent to revive the idea. But a strong, substantial response — something more than the traditional, trivial press-release denunciation — would be very useful. Earlier this week, North Korea threatened a preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S., and while it appears they don’t yet have the technology to execute such an attack, they will soon if nothing is done.
What’s more, North Korea isn’t the only increasingly hostile, nuke-ambitious state the United States has to worry about. Since Iran collected its ransom money and centrifuge-shut-off money, it has become more and more belligerent toward the U.S. Just last week, Yemeni Houthi rebels shot at least two cruise-missiles at American warships in the Gulf of Aden. The missiles, which missed, were evidently supplied by Iran, and were guided by Iranian-operated radar installations on shore.
With a real response to North Korea, we might be able to kill two birds with one stone: impede the progress of North Korea’s increasingly capable, increasingly dangerous missile program, and remind Iran that — Syrian red lines aside — the United States is not to be trifled with.