FLASH — KIM IL SUNG DOESN’T APPROVE OF PATRIOTS: DO WE NEED MORE TO BUY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES?
(Washington, D.C.): In recent days,
North Korea has served notice that it
vehemently opposes the idea of U.S.
deployment of Patriot anti-missile
batteries to defend South Korea. Such a
deployment has been formally requested by
the American commander in South Korea,
Gen. Gary Luck, and the Clinton
Administration is reportedly giving the
request favorable consideration.(1)
Wake-Up Call
The contention by the despotic
communist regime of Kim Il Sung that
deployment of 256 Patriot interceptors
would “increase the danger of
war” on the Korean peninsula should
concentrate the minds of U.S.
policy-makers on three points:
- Don’t take two to three
months to redeploy Patriots to
South Korea. Clearly, no
good will come of the sort of
delay which was signalled last
week by unnamed Clinton
Administration officials anxious
simultaneously to let it be known
that the President is “very
favorable disposed” to Gen.
Luck’s request and that it
will not be honored until March
or April. - Don’t stop with the
Patriots. Gen. Luck has
reportedly asked for the urgent
upgrading of his capabilities to
defend the 36,000 U.S. troops in
South Korea and the peninsula
they are there to protect. Not
surprisingly, this Administration
appears most comfortable with the
request to deploy anti-missile
systems that have, as a practical
matter, no offensive potential.
Still, it would be irresponsible
to deny the local commander
whatever additional firepower he
needs to maintain effective
deterrence and to fight
decisively if need be. - Take immediate steps to
avoid any repeat of this
strategic fiasco in the future. There
is no reason why the United
States should remain in a
position where a nation like
North Korea can try to prevent
the deployment of effective
missile defenses. With a modest,
albeit sustained and high
priority effort, space-based
sensors and interceptors coupled
with sea-based radars and
anti-missile missiles could be
swiftly deployed that would give
America essentially global
protection against ballistic
missile strikes.
Coming as it does on the heels
of other examples of the
Administration’s gross
incompetence in this area,(2)
this protracted interval will
have predictable results: It will
simply invite Kim Il Sung to turn
up the heat on Seoul and
Washington in the hope of
intimidating one or the other, or
both, to perpetuate South Korea’s
absolute vulnerability to missile
attack.
To be sure, given the
Patriots’ built-in limitations,
these batteries will only be able
to defend small parts of South
Korea. Still, as the Gulf War
proved, some defense is
unquestionably better than none. Inevitably,
American resolve and reliability
will be calibrated, by
adversaries and friends alike, by
the length of time it takes to
redeploy the Patriots to South
Korea — the steadiness of
purpose the U.S. exhibits along
the way.
Should the Administration,
nonetheless, decline to do so — and
prove in due course to have been
as wrong in this instance as it
was concerning last year’s
refused request for more armor
from its commander in Somalia —
the consequences of that
miscalculation will be grave,
indeed. The political
bloodletting accompanying that
earlier debacle could well seem
like a church social by
comparison.
It is time to stop investing
— as the Clinton Administration
is intent on doing — exclusively
in defensive technologies like
Patriot (i.e., short-range,
land-based anti-missile systems)
that require either immense
investment, improbable prescience
or an adversary’s de facto
permission to deploy where they
might be needed. The
United States should instead
proceed immediately to acquire a
truly global defense against
missile attack.
If the U.S. does so swiftly,
moreover, it may even be able to
secure financial underwriting
from allied nations who
increasingly recognize the need
for such effective defenses. At
the very least, America stands a
chance of dissuading nations from
going down the road to deployment
of offensive ballistic missile
forces and perhaps offering an
attractive alternative to
procuring their own nuclear
deterrents. Effective
global defenses could, in short,
do more to help curb the spread
of such threatening offensive
weapons than all the Clinton
Administration’s other
non-proliferation initiatives
combined.
The Bottom Line
In light of Kim Il Sung’s latest
threats, the Center for Security Policy
reiterates its call for an
urgent, wholesale redirection of the
Clinton Administration’s approach to
ballistic missile defense. The
confrontation with North Korea is fair
warning: If the United States wishes to
be able to provide effective deterrence
to its adversaries and credible
protection for its own interests and
those of its friends, it will have to
have a ready capacity to neutralize
missile threats virtually anytime and
anywhere around the world.
– 30 –
1. For more on
Gen. Luck’s request and its strategic
implications, see the
href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=94-D_11at”>attached
column by Center for Security Policy
director Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. published
in last Friday’s Washington Times.
2. These missteps
are elegantly chronicled in an article in
today’s Wall Street Journal
which prominently features Albert
Wohlstetter, a recipient of the Center
for Security Policy’s “Freedom
Flame” award. Dr. Wohlstetter
ridicules the Administration’s notions of
negotiating IAEA inspections of
suspicious North Korean nuclear sites as
“a joke.”
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024
- Four weeks after release, Big Intel remains a #1 Amazon bestseller - February 13, 2024