While digesting last night's revelation that North Korea detonated its first nuclear test, my thoughts immediately moved toward what the Bush administration's reaction would be. After ruling out any actual military option (thanks not only to the ramifications of attacking a nuclear state, but also our Armed Forces being bogged-down in Iraq/Afghanistan), my thoughts turned to the same concerns the Bush administration would consider first--
Political concerns.
In the wake of that realization, I can imagine only one angle the Bush Administration will take in order to maximise political gain from this crisis: A renewed call to push for additional spending on a national missile defense system.
This is a gigantic mistake.
The Bush administration has been spending roughly $10 Billion per year on missile defense systems that are, at best, minimally effective on terminal-stage (that's when the missle/warhead is decending towards ground) ballistic missiles. Sure, it would be nice to have a safety net of anti-ballistic missile systems, but keep in mind that North Korea is still quite a ways from sporting a
deliverable nuclear weapon.
The North Korean test of a stationary, underground device was just that--stationary and underground. With regards to the actual delivery and detonation of a similar device in enemy territory, the North Koreans have proven nothing. They could forseeably attach it to a missile, but the only ballistic missiles in their arsenal that can reasonably be relied upon to hit a target are their Scud-C's, which have a range of little beyond the Korean peninsula, and perhaps the Nodong, which could hit most of Japan (for a good synopsis of this issue, see today's article in the WashPost). The two-stage Taepodong missile which theoretically could reach San Francisco had a critical malfunction when test-fired earlier this year.
In addition, the technological hurdle of minimizing the size and shape of the nuclear device in order to be mounted in a ballistic missile is quite high.
Taking this into account, the threat to the United States homeland from a North Korean ICBM is outreageously slim-to-nil. Much more likely are two scenarios:
1. The use of a short-to-mid-range Nodong/Scud-C to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target in Japan/S. Korea; and
2. The passing of a North Korean nuclear device into the hands of terrorist elements who would deliver it through other methods such as smuggling through our nation's vastly unguarded ports.
The first scenario is tailor-made for the currently-deployed Aegis Ballistic Defense System, which is ship-borne and can destroy a ballistic missile in the critical boost-phase. Having an Aegis cruiser or two stationed in the Sea of Japan or Yellow Sea could be a fairly effective deterrant to further North Korean missile testing, as well as to any potential firing of a nuclear-armed missile in the direction of the Japanese.
The second scenario, however, seems to be much more threatening given the lack of implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations (particularly on border & port security). Of course, we haven't heard much discussion of this since the administration changed it's reasoning on Iraq. Remember, the original reason for invading Iraq was the supposed "nexus" between terrorists and tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. I guess the same rulebook doesn't apply to Kim Jong-Il.
That $10 Billion per year would certainly be better spent on radiation detection at our nation's ports and border crossings. But, that wouldn't likely entail as much in the way of defense contracts to Raytheon and Northrup Grumman, would it?
Bearing all of this in mind, how long before we see the following on CNN?
(thanks to the Bush Background Generator)