North Korea Says Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Can be Launched “Anytime, and Anywhere”
Over the last four years, North Korea has tested every ballistic missile in its arsenal, from Scuds, a relatively short ranged tactical ballistic missile, and No-Dongs, a redesign of the Scud technology, to Musudans, a mobile, medium range ballistic missile, and now Pyongyang says that it is ready to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) as well.
While North Korean nuclear progress is often mocked, it is vital that North Korea is seen as a credible threat. In two short months, North Korea went from a Musudan test launch that blew up on the launch pad to a successful test launch that showed the range of the missile and its ability to re-enter the atmosphere. Pyongyang is serious about developing its nuclear weapon delivery technology and we ought to take this threat seriously.
On Sunday, January 8th, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the state news agency of North Korea, published an article regarding North Korea’s ICBM development. In this article, an unidentified North Korean defense ministry spokesperson is quoted saying “The ICBM will be launched anytime and anywhere determined by the supreme headquarters of the DPRK.” That same day, US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter called North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities a “serious threat” to the US during his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
In an interview with NBC news on January 25th, Choe Kang II, deputy director general for North American affairs at North Korea’s foreign ministry, said of an ICBM launch “It will be carried out at any time.” He warned NBC’s Bill Neely, “We will match American nuclear weapons with our own. North Korea is ready to test launch its first long range missile.” In his New Year’s Day speech, Kim Jong UN also said that missile testing of an ICBM is nearing the final stages.
Further solidifying the claim of an imminent ICBM, this last week on Secure Freedom Radio, Gordon Chang informed listeners that based on satellite imagery, North Korea has most likely restarted their plutonium reactor, a more practical alternative to weapons grade uranium in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Chang also reminds listeners that North Korea may not just be creating plutonium. Pyongyang also has the capability for uranium enrichment, which is not as easily detected.
Commercial satellite imagery from January 18th indicates that the plutonium production reactor at North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center has likely resumed. Images showed spent fuel rods unloaded for reprocessing after plutonium production and further images from January 22nd show a (most likely warm) water plume originating from the cooling water outlet of the reactor. The river where the plume empties is mostly iced over except where the water from the plume is mixing in. Because it is impossible to measure the temperature of the water, scientist are unsure at what power level the reactor is operating.
The renewed development of weapons grade fuel adds credibility to Pyongyang’s rhetoric and highlights increased North Korean belligerence.
It is important to remember that any test that comes after multiple political pronouncements is most likely a demonstration and not a test at all. John Schilling, an aerospace engineer writing for 38 North, states
“A test is an experiment, an attempt to determine whether or not a new system will work, and if not, why. A demonstration is meant to prove to a skeptical audience that, yes, North Korea does have a workable ICBM.”
If a test fails, North Korea does not lose its credibility because they were just testing their technology. However, this time, any ICBM launch is already preceded by strong rhetoric and unavoidable puts Pyongyang’s reputation on the line.
While North Korea has frequently threatened nuclear attacks against the continental United States, analysists previously believed that the country was much further away from effective intercontinental ballistic missile technology.
A North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a warhead able to survive reentering the atmosphere would give Pyongyang the ability to strike the continental United States with a nuclear weapon.
But what should the US do about an ICBM-capable North Korea? In the event of hostilities, a preemptive strike on North Korean missiles and missile facilities may be ideal, but would require locating and targeting underground facilities scattered all around the country. In the end, there is no guarantee that all the facilities would be destroyed and North Korea would likely retain the ability to launch.
If North Korea is to conduct a demonstration of an ICBM, it will most likely launch on a trajectory that mimics a long-range flight. In this case, the US could attempt to shoot down the missile.
The US National Missile Defense System could shoot down a long-range missile from our fixed sites in Alaska and California, protecting the continental United States. Unfortunately, the United States is currently not prepared to defend regional allies at risk from a North Korean missile attack.
If North Korea in fact test launches an ICBM, they will most likely either increase the angle of the launch, thus limiting the range of the arc, or utilize a modified Unha space launch vehicle, an expendable carrier rocket, fitted with a reentry vehicle large enough for a nuclear warhead. This, unfortunately, would put an end to any pretense of a peaceful North Korean space program. Either way, it is unlikely that North Korea will aim an ICBM at the US at this time.
There is one other option for missile defense that is rocking the Korean Peninsula.
In negotiations between the US and Seoul, South Korea has agreed to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD) to the Korean Peninsula. The forward deploying of missile defense technology against North Korea represents a concrete step to protect U.S. allies from nuclear attack, and represents a step forward from the soft power sanctions in place before.
However, North Korea views THAAD as a threat and sees an air defense system as a threat.
Bruce Bechtol, an expert on North Korea, believes that sanctions are still the answer to North Korea. The right sanctions are already in place; Bechtol believes that they simply need to be enforced.
Tailored sanctions are most effective when the US partners with China. However, China has a vested interest in the status quo and prioritizes keeping the region stable. Beijing is hesitant to put too much pressure on Pyongyang and suffer retaliation or risk seeing the North Korean regime collapse, destabilizing the region
Whether the US chooses soft or hard power, Pyongyang is likely to view any action as hostility. The question must be, which response will put more pressure on North Korea to slow down or halt its nuclear weapon development? North Korea is as unpredictable as ever and carrots and sticks must be carefully balanced in an effort to protect our regional allies.
