Missiles on parade in North Korea…
…but no tests, despite widespread apprehension that a nuclear test would mark the big 105th birthday celebration in North Korea.
That’s—interesting.
Some of the missiles appeared to be new types for North Korea:
Analysts were working to identify all the missiles that were shown off on Saturday, many of which appeared to have new paint jobs or be variants on known missiles.
One of the missiles looked similar to the KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile that North Korea had included in previous parades. This missile has a theoretical range of about 7,500 miles, which is enough to reach all of the United States from North Korea, said Joshua Pollack, editor of the Nonproliferation Review.
It also put two ICBM canisters, which protect solid-fueled missiles from the effects of the environment, on the trucks that had carried the ICBMs previously. One may have been a KN-14, another missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, although it has a slightly shorter range.
I have to say that the first thing that occurred to me on reading that article was “how do we know these things are real?” We do know that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, but we know that from the detonations of those weapons in tests. We don’t know it from parades.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Everything in that parade yesterday might have represented a weapon that is fully operational and ready to go. But I don’t trust that’s true, and when I Googled “How do we know the North Korean missiles in the parade are real?”, up came this article with some experts questioning the same thing. By the “same thing,” I don’t literally mean questioning whether all the missiles in the parade are real—they’re almost certainly not, because that would be a dangerous practice —but whether they truthfully represent the true nuclear capabilities of the country displaying them.
The answer is that we simply don’t know:
Under Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s off-and-on nuclear program has progressed significantly. Since he took power in 2011, Pyongyang has conducted three nuclear tests, including what it claimed to be a thermonuclear device.
Speaking to CNN last month, Euan Graham, director of international security at Australia’s Lowy Institute, cautioned against underestimating the country’s capabilities.
“I think a lot of people would have scoffed at the idea that a country of threadbare means like North Korea would be able to test (submarine-launched ballistic missiles),” he said.
But Schiller said there was still room for a great deal of skepticism.
“If you just look at what they showed on TV and in photos, it looks impressive,” he said. “But from an engineering and project management approach, a lot of mistakes have been done in the past year.”
One problem with the North Korean weapon program that’s likely to be on display at this weekend’s parade, Schiller said, is its apparently sprawling size.
Previously, mock-ups of ostensibly the same missile — such as the KN-08, which was rolled out in 2012 and 2015 — “looked very different,” Schiller said. “That would never happen if there is a frozen missile design, you know what the missile should look like.”
Whatever the exact state of its nuclear weapons program, North Korea deserves the Reaganesque term “evil empire,” and one nuclear bomb would be one too many. Under the last three presidents, the country has grown its nuclear weapons program despite our efforts to halt it. And now a fourth president gets to try. Here’s the understatement of the year [highlighted portion]:
“It should be noted that there is a personality difference between Trump and Obama,” the Global Times newspaper wrote Friday. The paper does not speak for the Chinese government on policy but often reflects a strain of thinking within the Communist Party.
“Trump is also willing to show he is different. Bombing Syria helps him to show that,” it continued, while noting that he was far from “revolutionary” because he dispatched only missiles, not troops…
Right now, Trump has some cards to play, said Kim of the Asan Institute.
“He might say: ”˜If you want one less battleship in the region, what are you going to give me?’”‰” he said ”” a reversal of the usual situation, in which North Korea asks what it can get from its adversaries in return for changing its behavior.
It had been the previous pattern that North Korea called the shots. That certainly wasn’t a productive pattern—except for North Korea.
Back in December of 2016 I wrote this about Trump:
It’s not a bad thing for the world to find a president somewhat unpredictable, as well as willing to project US strength and ability to defend itself. But too much unpredictability and too much aggressiveness can backfire and cause an equal reaction on the part of those who feel threatened.
As I’ve said before: we’ll see.
Indeed.
[NOTE: Here’s another post I wrote even earlier than that one, about the possible advantages (and disadvantages) of Trump’s unpredictability and bellicosity.
Trump is somewhat unpredictable, but he’s not crazy. The leader of North Korea is most likely both, as well as evil. Tiptoeing around him doesn’t seem to have done any good. Treating him as though he might be a somewhat rational actor amenable to pressure makes sense to me as an alternative.]
Are you sure he’s not crazy?
“Trump is somewhat unpredictable, but he’s not crazy. The leader of North Korea is most likely both, as well as evil.” – Neo
What matters is what is KJU’s assessment. He may think trump just as crazy as we think KJU is.
(I bet, to much of the world, “unpredicatability”, and self-defeating behavior, along with no discernible overarching principles or philosophy, also LOOKS “crazy”, but that is another discussion).
Also, KJU may be “logical” within his environment, and history – cage rattling and weapons testing may have been a successful strategy for some time.
Who’s to say it doesn’t get him what he really wants this time too?
I think crazy (unpredictable) or cowboy going back to Reagan and Bush are good things with the bad guys on the international scene. For the rest of the world to see him not buckling down to the Left (MSM, politicians, snowflakes) must be unsettling! No other R has shown such a non-caring stance.
This was one of the only reasons that voting for McCain was a positive for me – I thought most foreign leaders were scared he had PTSD. IIRC, I read that he has an explosive temper.
@JuliB – Don’t think Reagan and trump are in the same category in this regard.
Reagan was rather clear eyed and consistent in who he thought was “the enemy”.
He also didn’t issue “threats” so publicly, and equally publicly back down and reverse himself.
“Cowboy” was a caricature of Reagan, but he was assertive / tough and focused.
“Unpredictable” is the reality of trump – for both good and bad. Unfocused, and it becomes incoherent.
Regarding trump’s “unpredictability”…
“Trump’s genius was in letting millions of people largely believe what they wanted to believe about his policies and preferences and refusing to get in the way.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446641/donald-trump-ideology-trumpism-alt-right-syria-steve-bannon-populism
I don’t know if Kim cares a lick about anyone, but he probably doesn’t want to die, or be at the mercy of his own people he’s tortured or imprisoned.
I think that’s why he will be the one who blinks every time in the face of greater force.
It is a volatile, but not necessarily progressive condition. Somehow, each party will need to save face and reconcile their differences.
Interesting read on this situation…
https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-strategy-getting-china-pressure-north-korea-all-sticks-no-carrots
Neo’s last sentence leaves me puzzled. If Kim is probably both unpredictable and crazy and evil. While tiptoeing around him hasn’t worked… how does now treating him as a rational actor amenable to pressure make sense? What new basis is there for assuming such to now be true?
For Right and Freedom
Geoffrey Britain:
This is more or less what I think:
neo,
Ah, that clears things up for me and I’m basically in agreement.
I’m of the opinion that this may be our last chance to arrest N. Korea’s pursuit of long range nuclear missile capability. If we settle for too little, this horrific possibility occurred to me the other day; should Kim be allowed to continue his nuclear and missile development until he has plenty of ICBMs… what is to prevent him from holding hostage the survival of multiple cities in the region?
Not counting Seoul, there are easily 155 MILLION innocents in just the top 12 most populous cities from Sydney to Manila. They would then have a nuclear gun to their heads… Kim could use that threat to prevent American military interference, while he invades S. Korea.
Can anyone doubt that had he the power, that he wouldn’t threaten millions with every intention of following through if opposed?
What is the chance that the failed missile launch was scuttle by . . . the North Koreans?
Could it be that Kim chickened out? He had talked up his ‘big event’ and thus had to show something to save face. Thus a ‘failed launch’.
M Williams:
A failed launch doesn’t save face with any audience I can think of.
Bir Maq –
“Don’t think Reagan and trump are in the same category in this regard. ”
I should have been more explicit – I’m talking about perception, not reality. And from the perspective of the bad guys.
I have no idea what the reality of Trump is wrt/foreign policy.
@JuliB – As I mentioned elsewhere, unpredictability on tactics – good – unpredictability on where he stands / philosophy – not good.
Allies and enemies always knew where they stood with Reagan.
Not so with trump, as he so easily reverses himself, and allies seem to be as much of a target as enemies.
Neo responded “A failed launch doesn’t save face with any audience I can think of.”
My thinking is this . . .
What are Kim’s options?
1) shoot off a missile and risk retaliation from USA
2) no missile launch and risk looking cowardly after all his belligerent talk
From Kim’s POV #2 is far worse. His own people would turn on him.
So #1 is his only choice.
So he launches . . . and it fizzles.
Which means software or hardware caused the failure.
The failure is due to . . .
a) an ‘honest’ failure
b) USA, or someone, hacked the software and caused the failure
c) NK purposely blew it up
a or b means Kim is willing to risk retaliation, or at a minimum, up the ante.
c means he caved to Trump’s brinksmanship, but went through the motions primarily for domestic consumpion – and to save his ass. Kim could still appear tough – after all, he had every intention of launching.
But, as I said – what is the chance? I think it is small, but I also think it’s a possibility. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a regime went to great lengths for propaganda purposes.