Latest North Korean Missiles Tests Raise Questions about Missile Defense
by Jerry Gordon (July 2016)
North Korean Musudan Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile 4,000 KMs
Adm. William “Bill” Gortney
Former NORAD Commander
Source: author
Admiral Gortney cautioned against dismissal of the three medium range Musudan launches in April 2016 because they were not unlike the failures in our own early rocket program. He said the fact that North Koreans are testing means they will derive the data to ultimately achieve success. He was concerned about the longer range KN-08 and KN-14, like the Musudan, mounted on mobile carriers with prospective short launch capabilities. Both the KN-08 and KN-14 are yet to be tested.
The Latest North Korean Missile Tests
reported Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani saying:
The anxiety of these latest North Korean missile tests were also reflected in comments from South Korean President Park and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
South Korean President Park Geun-hye denounced the test.
The UN Security Council passed more stringent sanctions in March 2016 against the hermit state led by Kim Jung-Un, grandson of the Communist founder, Kim il Sung. Kim claims North Korean sovereignty to conduct such tests despite UN sanctions against ballistic missile testing. Those sanctions were backed by China, a sometime ally of North Korea. The latest North Korean missile tests brought this statement from a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying:
At present, the situation on the peninsula remains very complex and severe. We think that the relevant party should avoid doing anything to further worsen tensions.
Significance of the latest North Korean missile tests
In April 2016, North Korea conducted static tests of more powerful engines that could be fitted on the longer range KN-08 and KN-14 intercontinental missiles. The significance of these latest North Korean missile tests was noted in a Wall Street Journal report:
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies, has examined images released this year by North Korean state media and believes the KN-08 uses a pair of engines matching those used on the Musudan.
“The North Koreans are making progress toward a workable Musudan. If we do nothing, they will move on to a missile, using the same technology, that can reach the U.S.,” said Mr. Lewis, who advocates trying to reach a test moratorium with North Korea on its missile program.
North Korea appears unlikely to respond to another round of test moratoriums. What is concerning is North Korea’s demonstrated shift to development of a “second strike” capability. That is reflected in development and test of mobile or submarine launched intermediate and intercontinental range missiles, such as the Musudan, KN-08 and KN-14. The latter versions, which might be developed and operational by 2020, may be capable of hitting the US mainland.
Admiral Gortney at an April 7, 2015 Pentagon news conference stated:
Pyongyang has “the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland [the continental United States].” He expressed confidence that the U.S. could knock down such a missile if launched by North Korea or its ally, Iran.
The KN-08 is a road-capable, highly mobile ICBM, which can be hidden anywhere throughout North Korea and could be fired on a short-countdown virtually undetectable by American intelligence.
He also admitted that it is “very difficult” for the U.S. to counter the threat, because it is unable to follow the mobile ICBMs and give an efficient warning before they are launched.
The BBC reported North Korea’s Kim trumpeting these latest missile tests:
Pentagon Secretary Ash Carter reflected Admiral Gortney’s views in a Stars and Stripes interview:
The irony is that a preemptive attack proposal against North Korean missiles originated a decade ago in 2006 in a Time Magazine article co-authored by then Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, now Pentagon Chief, and former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry.
.png)
How adequate is our Missile Shield?
We noted in our March 2016, New English Review article about the questionable status of our ballistic missile shield against the North Korean nuclear missile threat. That concern was heightened following the January and February nuclear test and space satellite launch that preceded the six Musadan missile test series. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Ground-based Mid-Course Defense (GMD) system was the subject of a critical February 17, 2016 General Accountability Office report. The GAO report focused on the problems of developing an effective kill vehicle and deploying batteries in California and Alaska. Proposals for installation of GMD batteries on our East Coast and Aegis shore-based systems on the Gulf Coast against Iranian ICBM threats have been tabled. Further, the MDA contends that it has an effective means of countering any launch of container-ship borne cruise missile threats that Iran has tested. North Korea has demonstrated that it can place a satellite in a southern polar orbit crossing the US every 95 minutes is problematic. It raises the possibility of a Fractional Orbital Bomb Satellite equipped with a low yield nuclear device perhaps capable of triggering an EMP effect over the US.
In a prior NER April 2015 assessment of North Korean and Iranian ICBM capabilities, we noted the conclusions of the Johns Hopkins University US-Korea Institute study:
· Improve U.S. homeland ballistic missile defense. The U.S. should accelerate deployment of additional ground-based midcourse defense interceptors in Alaska and California to prevent an emerging gap between North Korean ballistic missile capabilities and U.S. defenses.
· Accelerate development of advanced versions of the SM-3 interceptor for Aegis-capable ships, including restarting the SM-3 Block IIB program, which would give the Aegis system the ability to intercept long-range ballistic missiles.
· Restart the boost-phase ballistic missile defense programs. During the boost phase, a missile is at its slowest, has not yet deployed decoys, and is therefore most vulnerable and easily intercepted. The Obama Administration cancelled all such programs in its first term, including the Airborne Laser and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor.
· Restart the multiple kill vehicle program for ground-based interceptors to increase the probability of interception by only one interceptor, rather than requiring the launch of multiple interceptors.
· Improve and modernize U.S. space-based sensors, including the Space Tracking and Surveillance System. This is a critical capability for detecting missile launches and tracking their trajectory.
Conclusion
Without commitments to an adequate missile defense shield for the continental US and allies in Europe, Middle East, the Korean Peninsula and Japan, the international defense alliances will not be prepared. Ironically, Israel is perhaps the best prepared of our allies to counter the gamut of missile threats from Iran and its rogue proxies. This is reflected in joint development of the missile defense umbrella composed of the Iron Dome, David Sling and the Arrow III anti-ICBM systems. It will be up to the next US President to address the deficiencies of our missile defense to assure that there will be no surprise missile threat against the US heartland.
_____________________________________
To comment on this article, please click here.
To help New English Review continue to publish timely and interesting articles like this one, please click here.
If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Jerry Gordon, please click here.
Jerry Gordon is a also regular contributor to our community blog. To read his entries, please click here.