Carter/Perry on North Korea
Just a word on yesterday's Ashton Carter & Bill Perry op-ed arguing for a preventative military strike on North Korea to prevent it from testing the Taepodong missile. Josh wrote that "genuinely surpises me". And, of course, Carter and Perry are veterans of the Clinton administration so one shouldn't dismiss them out of hand as know-nothings. Indeed, they know a great deal more about this than I do. But it's not all that surprising, the two of them have long been very hawkish on North Korea.
Back in October 2002, they wrote regarding the nuclear issue that "the two ingredients of a possible solution must be the credibility of our determination to remove the nuclear threat even if it means war, and the patience to pursue -- creatively and tenaciously -- diplomatic alternatives" at a time when almost nobody thought war was a serious option for dealing with the situation. Somebody told me today that in their book about the 1994 North Korea crisis they say they advised President Clinton to go to war back then, though I can't verify that with the tools at my disposal at the moment.
The point being merely that this isn't a sudden change of heart. Carter and Perry may be correct, but for quite some time now they've been outliers on the North Korea issue, significantly more willing to contemplate using force as an option than are most people.
I would also note that in their 2002-2003 vintage writings on the subject they kept emphasizing the need for the US, South Korea, and Japan, at a minimum, to be on the same page. Now they seem to think we should launch a strike that South Korea will oppose, and that Japan will publicly oppose while, allegedly, privately supporting. I'd be interested in knowing what prompted that change of heart.
What about jamming the rocket's telemetry? Do we have the capability to do that?
June 22, 2006 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henley's got a nice post on this.
June 22, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the world coming to when former Clinton administration members want to launch pre-emptive acts of war?
June 23, 2006 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not easily, if at all. Telemetry uses quite directional radio waves (e.g., super high frequency (SHF)). Think of a cone with the missile at the top.
It's routine to intercept telemetry, which can tell us much. This would be the usual mission of some of the many derivatives of RC-135 signal intelligent aircraft, flying through the cone.
To jam it, you'd have to get an aircraft, with the right jamming transmitter, essentially into the line of sight between ground receiver and the missile. That's pretty fast moving, and the main US jammer aircraft, the EA-6, isn't all that agile. It might be possible to use shipboard jammers against coastal, but probably not inland, receivers. Unless there's something new (and probably classified), this would have to use one of the newer models of the CLASSIC OUTBOARD Navy system.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 23, 2006 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rob Farely at LGM had a nice post on why this is a bad idea, and I have one on why simply turning the missile defense system is risky and really won't do much to benefit the US strategically.
Some are obviously overreacting to the DPRK and seem to think that this in some way threatens the US in the short term. What I find interesting about it is that people like Carter and Perry think that a conventional preventive strike on one missile will somehow be a greater deterrent than our massive nuclear deterrent...funny how people seem to forget about that when talking about the issue.
June 23, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing several issues.
Perry/ Carter want to deny the DPRK the learning they would gather from this test so as to deny it effective missiles. Thus, they are trying to deter the test with the threat of a conventional attack. The threat of a nuclear attack will not deter the test because it is not credible-- nobody believes the US should threaten the DPRK with a nuclear strike if it goes ahead with the test.
If your point is that there is no need to deter or stop the North Korean test because even if they get deliverable nukes they will be deterrable, then that is different-- i.e. you are skipping over the need to deter the test because you think it is largely unimportant. However, I would point out that nuclear deterrence between the US and the DPRK is likely to be unstable for three reasons. First, the DPRK could collapse and its technology find its way inadvertently into the hands of terrorists. Second, DPRK command and control is vested in the hands of one person. States are rarely irrational because groups rarely commit collective suicide but individuals can and do terminate themselves. Thus, there is a worry that a NPRK with nukes may embark on risky behavior because KJL is not a person of sound mind. Finally, the DPRK may use its nuclear arsenal and missiles as an umbrella for all sorts of mischief-- i.e. it could deter the US from responding to conventional aggression, other provocations, etc.
Perry and Carter are very smart tough folks. This is a major development b/c it shows that the Democratic establishment is now publicly backing the principle of preventive and preemptive action.
June 23, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't confuse them--you are correct about my belief that the issue will be largely irrelevant due to our nuclear deterrent.
I would be more worried about collapse and terrorist acquisition if we were talking about Pakistan, but that is another debate entirely.
It is also unlikely that in the event of a nuclear showdown military leaders would be willing to stand by and let KJI simply bring about their own obliteration--the group dynamic can still function under such drastic pressures. In fact, if the military is ever going to move against its leader I would think it would be then.
The umbrella issue is more plausible but not convincing. If nuclear umbrellas have so much power why hasn't China taken Taiwan yet? Or used force against it? Why hasn't the conflict between India and Pakistan been worse since the two acquired their deterrents? There is little evidence to support the old stability-instability notion. Crazy or not I put my money on the constraining affects of nukes.
Also, the authors make the erroneous claim that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, which is a misleading nugget of information that helps them make their case. Just wanted to throw that in there because it has been bothering me.
And given the general reaction I would not say that this signals that the Democratic establishment has 'come around'--most recognize that these two gentlemen were always more hawkish on the North Korea issue.
June 23, 2006 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with most of your points, except that you seem to believe that NK does NOT have nuclear weapons.
While there is no PROOF that they do, the consensus of Western and Asian intelligence seems to be that they had at least one or two for some years, and that their reprocessing of the fuel rods a couple years ago has produced enough material for perhaps several more.
I think the consensus today would be that NK has at least 4 nuclear weapons and could have six, eight or ten.
Again, there is no PROOF of any of this, obviously - but I think the consensus is likely to be correct. I don't think we can compare it to Iraq or Iran, because in the case of Iraq it was KNOWN that Iraq did not have the material and in the case of Iran it is KNOWN that there has been no detectible diversion of material to a nuclear weapons program. Whereas in NK it is KNOWN that that they had the material, and I think it is KNOWN that they have the expertise.
The fact that they've never tested a weapon merely means that the weapons they have are likely very simple basic designs and undeliverable by most conventional means (artillery, missiles, etc.)
My suspicion is that their weapons are currently intended to be delivered by submarine and submersible against a possible US Navy battle group or possibly physically delivered and positioned in advance of a concentrated US military push into their territory. It is also possible that they might try to deliver such a weapon via a MiG fighter or bomber "suicide aircraft" - but whether they could fit a weapon of that sort in a MiG I couldn't speculate. I doubt the latter because the likelihood of an NK fighter or bomber surviving the US Air Force long enough to reach its target is really unlikely.
June 23, 2006 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink