That North Korean Missile

posted at 10:37 am on June 22, 2006 by Bryan

That North Korean ballistic missile is still sitting on the pad. It’s a liquid fuel rocket; it can only sit on the pad for so long before it either has to launch or must be de-fueled. Removing the fuel is an expensive, complicated process, and not one the North Koreans are likely to have either the money or the expertise to carry out without getting some technicians killed.

I covered a space shuttle launch a few years ago, and weather became a factor in whether and when to launch. The “whether” part had NASA sweating very expensive bullets, as getting the fuel into the big liquid fuel tank that sits between the two smaller solid fuel boosters costs one large pile of dollars, and getting the fuel out if that became necessary would cost yet another large pile of dollars. And the process takes a long time and is somewhat dangerous–the liquid fuel tank is a gigantic bomb, more or less. NASA’s budget isn’t infinite; de-fueling would have cost some scientist somewhere his mission. Fortunately, de-fueling never became necessary, the shuttle Columbia went up (for its last complete mission to touchdown) and the Hubble Space Telescope got its new cameras installed.

That North Korean rocket has no such noble uses. It won’t expand anyone’s understanding of the cosmos, but its firing would expand North Korea’s knowledge of how to kill South Koreans, Japanese and Americans. It’s part test fire and part sabre rattle, meant to remind the world that’s pre-occupied with Iran and Iraq that Kim is still hanging around and capable of causing great trouble.

So what should we do about it? Try to shoot it down once fired, or kill it on the pad?

I’m finding myself in rare agreement with a couple of Clinton-era DoD officials: We should kill that missile on the pad.

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive — the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea’s nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry.

The U.S. military has announced that it has placed some of the new missile defense interceptors deployed in Alaska and California on alert. In theory, the antiballistic missile system might succeed in smashing into the Taepodong payload as it hurtled through space after the missile booster burned out. But waiting until North Korea’s ICBM is launched to interdict it is risky. First, by the time the payload was intercepted, North Korean engineers would already have obtained much of the precious flight test data they are seeking, which they could use to make a whole arsenal of missiles, hiding and protecting them from more U.S. strikes in the maze of tunnels they have dug throughout their mountainous country. Second, the U.S. defensive interceptor could reach the target only if it was flying on a test trajectory that took it into the range of the U.S. defense. Third, the U.S. system is unproven against North Korean missiles and has had an uneven record in its flight tests. A failed attempt at interception could undermine whatever deterrent value our missile defense may have.

All good, and the part about how shooting the missile down after North Korean engineers have learned what they wanted from the launch makes a great deal of sense. And taking that missile out before its launch would also remind a few would-be enemies that even while our ground forces may be occupied in Iraq, we can still take out a fixed target anywhere in the world if we believe it’s in our interests to do so. It would remind our allies that we’re really not all a bunch of Murthas, and we can be depended on to use our technology in the service of defending them against the likes of Kim.

So I say take that missile out.

Update: A couple of points worth noting. First, there’s no indication that I’ve seen that North Korea has miniaturized any nuclear weapon to the point that they can arm their Taeopodong-2 or any other missile with a nuke. The vehicle currently on the pad is a test fire and a threat in that its range is sufficient to hit Hawaii and Alaska. Second, Clinton-era officials have been entirely duplicitous on the Iraq war; many of them were hawks in the 1990s only to become doves once the actual shooting started (including Clinton himself, Gore, Albright, Berger and several others). The two quoted above, William Perry and Ashton Carter, display some of this Democrat duplicitousness in a passage flagged by Austin Bay:

The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of “preemption,” which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

Within one paragraph, they contradict themselves re preemption, or rather, they’re typical Democrats in the sense that they’re for it when they’re for it and against it when it’s politically easier to be against it in retrospect because things didn’t work out peachy. Advocating striking North Korea now is pretty much cost-free for them. If we don’t do it, the missile fires and our interceptors miss, they can say “We told you so.” If we don’t do it, the missile fires and we hit, they can say “But what about the telemetry?” and they’ll have a point. If we do hit the missile on the pad they can take credit, until things go south and at that point they’ll make a quiet exit. No one paid attention to them before this article appeared, and they’ll be forgotten along with Al Gore’s 2002 speeches praising President Bush and egging on war with Iraq. The media will never make them justify this article.

Nevertheless, I think they’re right to argue that that missile is too much of a threat to shrug off, and hitting it after it’s fired is too late given that its test purpose is to deliver data back to North Korean engineers, and it will have done that.

More: I respect all the fine folks at Blackfive, but I think this post has it exactly backwards. North Korea isn’t responding to President Bush’s success with Europe re Nork and Iranian nuke programs and asking for bi-lateral talks; rather, North Korea is using the missile as a means to force the US into bi-lateral talks over its nukes. That has been the North Korean goal for years–divide the US from its allies and from China and force us to deal with Pyongyang directly. President Bush is having none of that, and rightly so, since the North Koreans are still more of a threat to its neighbors than it is to us. And it would let China off the hook for its role in propping Kim up and keeping his cult intact enough to pursue nuclear weapons.

China remains the key to curbing Kim’s fantasies, and thus far China isn’t helping beyond the usual “We think everyone should calm down” platitudes.

Update: For what it’s worth, Newt Gingrich is in the “destroy the missile on the pad” camp:

The American public is being reassured that we have a ballistic-missile defense that will work. No serious person believes this. None of the tests have been robust enough or realistic enough to assure us that we could intercept the North Korean ICBM no matter where it was aimed.

In the immediate and present danger, the United States should not wait to attempt to shoot the missile down after it is launched. There is no proven reliable technology and no evidence that we could succeed. Instead, we should destroy the missile on its site before it is launched. Our ability to preempt the launch is nearly certain.

We can’t afford failure.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Amen, Bryan. Killing the missile on the pad is a none too subtle reminder that while they are still developing the capability to reach us, we already have the ability to reach them. Bismarckian Diplomacy was made for this scenario.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 22, 2006 at 10:51 AM

Woudn’t shooting at a target in North Korea and possibly causing catostrophic damage to their facility be considered an act of War? I am not even counting the number of Koreans that would be killed by their missiles explosion.

I can imagine the worlds reaction to our illeagle and imperialistic unilateral decision to take out the missile on the ground too. (at least they would say that)

Shooting it out of the sky would be safer, Unfortunatly our missile defense system may not be that good.

Too bad Korea can’t just fire the missile at the UN, maybe that would wake them up.

Wyrd on June 22, 2006 at 10:54 AM

The very fact that they have this missile ready to go is as much of an expicit act of war as it gets.Take that sucker out on the ground.

bbz123 on June 22, 2006 at 11:04 AM

What to do? That’s easy. Strike first!

Screw this interceptor garbage. We know where it is! Take it out NOW!

Blow the freakin thing to Kingdom Come right on the launch pad!

Show them who the world power is!

My God, when are we going to get some stones!
This diplomacy thing is BS!
What happened to the Bush Doctrine?
Where’s Ronnie? Wasn’t he cryogenically frozen?

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2006 at 11:18 AM

I agree with you bbz1, but the reverse can also be said about the US (and has been said over and over again so many times I want to strangle the next idjit that calls us an imperial power)

We have the army, the hardware, and the means to wipe out Korea, China Iran and most other countries. We do not because we aren’t an imperial power bent on conquest.
But if we attack Korea are we ready for the back lash?
I fear I am thinking like Churchill (Winston, not Ward). Let the enemy do their test, let them do their attack then the rest of the world would have to wake up and deal reality. Otherwise people will continue to diffuse the situation by pointing their fingers at us and let Kim off the hook, leaving him free to pursue his weapons programs.

Wyrd on June 22, 2006 at 11:19 AM

I disagree, Bryan. If things were different in Iraq I’d be gung ho but the NorKs are sufficiently unhinged that I wouldn’t want to give them an excuse to move on South Korea. Besides, are we sure that there is a missile there? And that it’s ready to go?

Allahpundit on June 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM

It would be a shame if the test just went tragically wrong, and there was a big explosion on the launch pad.

Dave at Garfield Ridge concurs, BTW.

see-dubya on June 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM

There’s also the intriguing question of what a .50 cal HE round would do to a ready-to-go liquid fueled missle. It would definitely look like a technical failure to pretty much everyone out of the blast radius, which has much less PR value than an obvious US strike.

NOK’s a tough place to get in and out of, but we have some mighty tough people.

In thinking about it, wouldn’t the best use of a missle that you think won’t work be using it as bait for a sympathy generating attack? “Interesting times” indeed!

KCSteve on June 22, 2006 at 11:22 AM

I’m pretty hawkish. But with the Kims, I say, you can’t take it out on the ground unless you use a sniper team or some other sort of “invisible” means. Sending a cruise missile over there would be considered an act of war, especially by Murthas and Chiracs of the world. We would lose even more credibility when it is time to deal with a more serious theat. Gotta take it out once it’s in the air. Then the world can see it as an agressive act, provocated by nothing we did, and as a clear breakage of the agreements back in ’99 and ’02.

I won’t cry if they lob a few tomahawks at it though :)

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM

“Missile on the launching pad” was the textbook definition of imminent back before Iraq. Did that change?

PS Thanks for the buttons, guys. Big help.

see-dubya on June 22, 2006 at 11:39 AM

I like KCsteves response.
Kim Il Jong is pretty machivelian, I would not put it past him to set the whole thing up as a PR stunt.

Wyrd on June 22, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Oh for Christ’s sake! Act of War! What would China do? What would Murtha say? What would Chirac say? What about our precious credibility? We need the world to see!

My God man, listen to your self! Do you live in a cornfield somewhere?

What happened to “I regret I have but one life to give” What happened to “Damn the torpedoes”
What happened to “Nuts”
What happened to “shall not perish from this earth”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2006 at 11:46 AM

There’s no doubt that the missile is there, and the North Koreans have at least made a grand show within view of our satellites of fueling it up. Once fueled up, you either have to launch or de-fuel, and de-fueling isn’t easily done. The North Koreans probably haven’t done a real-world de-fuel of a missile that large, nor is Kim likely to stand down in such a publicly humiliating (to his way of thinking) way. Once launched, unless our interceptors strike it very early in flight, the engineers will get back enough data to improve the next missile and perhaps even build a fleet of them to a decent standard of reliability–and this particular missile can hit US territory if it works as advertised. It’s therefore not an abstract threat to our allies, it’s a real threat to us. The main things holding them back from launching now seem to be a) the weather and b) the hope to achieve the maximum political effect of merely having the missile fueled up and ready. It’s got everyone on edge, talking about Kim again and once again grumbling that the US won’t sit down to bi-lateral talks with that loon. Kim’s the belle of the ball again.

It’s serious enough a situation that Japan has dispatched sea and air power to “monitor” North Korea. A few years back Japan announced the right to strike a North Korean missile on the pad if Japan believed that that missile threatened the Japanese people. Japan would have to do that using US refueling assistance and conventional fighter-bombers, since it lacks long-range missiles (and I don’t think Japan has aerial refueling yet, though I could be wrong on that). It’s probably better for the region and the world if we do the strike, though, given the history of the region and our long-strike capabilities.

Bryan on June 22, 2006 at 11:47 AM

We have some Boeing 747’s, Airborne Laser aircraft ABL that we should use to kill the Big Dong missile right on the pad.

We need to get some balls and do the right thing and quit going to the UN like a bunch of crybabies.


ScottyDog on June 22, 2006 at 11:53 AM

I normally agree 100% with you Dread. But all those quotes you mentioned…they were spoken during an actual all out battle…ease your finger off the trigger…we’ve got the big guns ready to fire if lil’ Kim so mutch as twitches.

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 12:02 PM

Bush has been spineless when it comes to dealing with the “axis of evil”. All talk but no real action. Syria and Iran are both helping to kill US soldiers in Iraq, on a daily basis, with money, weapons and foreign fighters. Not to mention they are the 2 biggest supporters of terror on the planet. But Bush is scared to deal with them.

The same with North Korea. I’ll bet anyone a steak dinner at Morton’s Bush chokes on North Korea and allows the launch. He’s basically pussified when it comes to dealing with the “axis of evil”.

msplitt on June 22, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Folks, many of you are too busy watching the missle but have missed one very important milestone development!

We have declared operation of a system envisioned by Ronald Reagan, a system the liberals would kill themselves to block from deployment. Russians and Chinese don’t even have a chance to protest!

Not only we have deployed it, but with a smile and ease, we swiftly declared it “operational”, courtesy to Kim Chung Il.

This is a major milestone. This move signaled the end of the MAD era…the Mutually Assured Destruction era.

This is the day that we Reaganite should celebrate with pride.

easy87us on June 22, 2006 at 12:19 PM

Time to send in Team America. I swear, every time I hear some news report about North Korea and Li’l Kim I keep thinking of that Team America puppet figure of him. It’s sort of become seared, SEARED into my mind.

pjcomix on June 22, 2006 at 12:21 PM

LOL Pjcomix
America….F*** YEAH!!!
I’d have B-2s and F-117s on standby, first time I see anything that says the missile is prepped to launch, send the bombers in and destroy that whole damn pad!

Defector01 on June 22, 2006 at 12:26 PM

All this talk about our credibility this and U.N that and the International Community is ridiculous. We are never going to win their approval/hearts and minds. It is in all of their interests to oppose and de-legitimatize US whenever and wherever they can. If we could just recognize that and act accordingly, we would at least be respected. When did we decide to trade respected (and feared) for bend over in the futile attempt to appease and assuage the utterly corrupt and hyprocritical “international community.”

America1st on June 22, 2006 at 12:29 PM

I’m more with Uncle Jimbo than Bryan. I don’t care much what the Murthas would think, but it would be an act of war and we cannot afford to open a second front now. No, North Korea almost certainly would not (and cannot) attack us directly, but they likely would attack South Korea because that would draw us into a conflict whether we wanted it or not.

Tell Japan we’re going to shoot it down and then do it. But only if we’re confident we can do it. I’m with Dave from Garfield Ridge, and would add that it would be oh so sweet if the missle malfunctioned and landed in China.

Bellicose Muse on June 22, 2006 at 12:35 PM

Wait, wait! Before we do anything to the missile we have to send in the human shields…. Sheehan, Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, there’s a plane standing by.

ScottG on June 22, 2006 at 12:37 PM

My point exactly Bellicose…it’s not concern for the Murthas that I’m talking about…it’s the fact that we would be drawn into another Korean War…because they would invade no doubt about it…as they would consider any preemptive strike an act of war. It’s better to let them f*&k up first and for them to be to blame when the whole peninsula erupts into War of the Kims.

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 12:49 PM

I’m no fan of Kim Jong Il, but there are potential problems to be considered with “taking out” their missile.

First, there is a distinction to be made between a “provocative act” – a NoKo missile test – and an act of war … which is what attacking that missile either on the ground or in the air would be. Are we prepared for war in Korea right now? Do we really think that the Norks would just shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well” were we to launch such an attack? While the 2nd Infantry Division is for the most part no longer within enemy artillery range along the DMZ, a lot of other South Korean civilian targets are, including Seoul itself. The Norks wouldn’t even have to attempt an invasion to cause a lot of havoc, death and destruction in response. And who do you suppose the South Koreans would blame in such an event? Hint: it wouldn’t be Kim Jong Il.

Second, what would happen if we tried to shoot down the missile after launch – and missed? What would that do the the credibility and deterrent value of our missile defense system? Do you suppose it would simply embolden the donkey party and its RINO allies in Congress to stiffen their opposition to having such a defense in the first place? I’m pretty sure that NORAD could figure out pretty darn quick whether the missile’s flight trajectory would take it to an American target; in such case, fine, try to shoot it down. But otherwise, save the missile defense for what it’s really meant for: protecting the US and its allies from a real nuclear attack, instead of making a “political statement” fraught with potentially dangerous and unpredictable consequences.

Third, were we to destroy the missile on the ground or in flight, where do you suppose the world’s attention would be focused? On North Korea? Or on us? “Were we justified?” “Is this an act of war?” “Is this another example of that cowboy George Bush acting unilaterally, without approval from the UN?” “America tests its own ballistic missiles over the Pacific; why is it forbidden for anyone else to?” And on and on, ad nauseam. Right now, the focus of attention and international condemnation is where it should be: on North Korea. Why not keep it there, instead of giving anti-American governments, media and international institutions exactly what they want?

Fourth, is this a genuine threat, or a NoKo PR stunt? If it were a real threat, shouldn’t we be seeing additional preparations for war on the part of the North? Shouldn’t we see their military on heightened alert? Shouldn’t we see them front-loading supplies and personnel along the DMZ? Shouldn’t we see them dispersing their air force and putting their navy to sea? We don’t see anything like this. So is an act of war in response an appropriate response to a PR stunt, especially given the third point above?

This particular kind of missile is a low threat potential to the US, despite its estimated range. It’s primitive, liquid-fueled technology requires days of preparation for launch on an exposed launchpad; in a real international crisis, where an attack by the North is imminent, we could detect such preparations long in advance and destroy such missiles before they got off the ground. If we took the current missile seriously as a threat, why aren’t we moving up our DefCon status? Why aren’t the carriers putting to sea? Why isn’t the 2nd Infantry Division deploying to battle positions in South Korea?

Yes, it’d be a “feel good moment” to humiliate the Norks by exploding their primitive little toy on the pad. And while we’re at it, why not sink the USS Pueblo – take away their “trophy” from the 1960s? That’d be the neatest thing we’ve done since the Mexican-American War. But given the undesirable potential consequences, doesn’t it sound more like a little short-term pleasure carrying the risk of some major long-term pain? Is it worth it?

Think it over.

Spurius Ligustinus on June 22, 2006 at 12:50 PM

Would’nt a NorKo missle launch violate the 1953 ceasefire?

Kid from Brooklyn on June 22, 2006 at 1:02 PM

Spurius Ligustinus, “Is it worth it?”


Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2006 at 1:04 PM


“What happened to ‘I regret I have but one life to give'”
“What happened to ‘Damn the torpedoes’”
“What happened to ‘Nuts’”
“What happened to ‘shall not perish from this earth’”

Uh, whatever happened to, “The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy?”

Whatever happened to, “Killing a spider with a meat-axe?”

Those ain’t quotes from Jaques Chirac of Kofi Annan …

War with the Norks may well be inevitable; but if so, and especially since I’d quite likely be one of the guys going over there to fight it, I’d prefer that we let them start it.

Spurius Ligustinus on June 22, 2006 at 1:27 PM


Firing on the “missile” on the ground would be an act of war, and China would join the Norks in going after us.

Let’s see if he shoots it off. It will give us a chance for another test of our system or it will show that he’s bluffing with a fake.

If he launches it and we miss, any info they got would be destroyed by our retaliation. We would be able to attack with impunity if they act on us first.

If we hit it, we could still attack with impunity as they are attacking us first.

We could lose some left-coasters, myself included, but if we get into it with NK and we are viewed as the aggressors, we will be getting into it with China.

If NK fires first, and we retaliate, China will have to show its hand by either condemning NK or attacking us. Then we may have to bring out the big guns, but hey, it IS a possibility-even as frightening as it is.

I think it’s quite possibly a bluff. Clinton’s staff would like nothing more than to help rush communism to world dominance by screwing up our tactics. Don’t listen to the enemy’s advice-they are out of office for a reason (thank the Lord).

NTWR on June 22, 2006 at 1:36 PM

Amen. Let them fire first. Then we’ll finish it. All I’m saying with this one is don’t throw the first punch. But throw the second one…and throw it f*%#@^g hard to prove a point.

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 1:41 PM

To fly a missle across Japan is a good enough reason to knock it out of its trajectory.

I don’t think we would be concerned if Kim fly his missle into Russia.

easy87us on June 22, 2006 at 1:41 PM

That won’t happen.

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 1:52 PM

I don’t want that damn thing anywhere near San Diego where I live
that’s what i’m worried about and that’s why I’m a little more “take that damn thing out fast” then most of the people on the thread. Living in a town with a massive naval and two marine bases, I’m a smidge worried I’m on the targeting list

Defector01 on June 22, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Defector–I wouldn’t worry too much; I’m sure this think will be accurate within a few degrees of latitude and longitude at this range.

Here’s my problem: The Bush Doctrine was about pre-emption and prevention. Does that only apply to the Middle East?

see-dubya on June 22, 2006 at 2:03 PM

Lil Kim probably has the missile aimed at Southpark Colorado. “I’ll show YOU who’s ronery!”

Fueling a missile is not an act of war, but launching one is. I say we should have a few Predator drones armed with Hellfires on station (circling) off the coast. As soon as it ignites, destroy it. If we wait til it’s in space we might be too late, our defenses may miss it and it might land in Southpark. “Oh my God! You killed Kenny! You bastards!”

I wonder if they got target aquisition technology from China. Thanks again Bill, your trade for campaign money just cost cost us a whole ‘nother war. Douche bag.

Tony737 on June 22, 2006 at 2:12 PM

Lil Kim probably has his missile aimed at South Park, CO. “I’ll show YOU who’s ronery!” Maybe he just saw “Team America” and heard it was made by the ‘guys from South Park’.

Fueling a missile is not act of war, but launching one is (as is making phoney U.S. money). Wait for the launch then take it out via Predator drones on station armed with Hellfires.

If it were to get by our missile defense, it might kill Kenny! I wonder if the NorKs got any target aquisition technology from China, Thanks again Klinton, your pay out for campaign money may have just cost some Americans their lives, your legacy lives on. Idiot.

Tony737 on June 22, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Defector, I’m near 1 base, 2 camps and one fort and one nuke plant on the coast, too.
The Bayarrhea has even more targets including Livermore Lab. We’re pretty well covered on the central/south side of CA with most testing being done around here on the interceptors.

I understand your problem see-dub…that bugs me too…

but I think NK is different than Iraq. Saddam was shooting missiles at our planes daily for years when we were doing work mandated by the UN. Saddam used weapons on his own people and the Iranians. Saddam played “hide the sausage” with his weapons and our inspectors for years. He ignored what, 17 resolutions? So we knew it was a matter of time.

We are engaged in 6 party talks with NK, we have some clout over there with our Okinawa base and SK and Japanese allies. They are the ones who are really freaked out, they don’t know if we’ll really help them after brisket legs Halfbright went over in her miniskirt and gave the Norks nukes.

If NK lobs the thing at us, we’ll use everything to nail it, and that will help give us credability with Japan and SK again. It will also completely freak everyone out.

NTWR on June 22, 2006 at 2:32 PM

Dammit, I thought my post didn’t go through so I retyped it, sorry for the repeat!

Tony737 on June 22, 2006 at 2:34 PM

BRYAN , I also hate to agree with Clintonistas on anything , but we must destroy this missle on the pad,NOW !!

PAPA BEAR on June 22, 2006 at 3:32 PM


I understand your worry about being targeted by the enemy. I live in Dallas/Fort Worth. And boy are there a lot of invaders here…albeit from a region South of the border.

BirdEye on June 22, 2006 at 4:22 PM

We have just tested fired an interceptor to knock out a warhead in its trajectory over the Pacific.

Another routine success.

easy87us on June 22, 2006 at 10:17 PM

The reasaon the Clintonians are talking about taking the NK missile out while it is on its pad is that they dragged their feet on developing the intercept system which would blast it out of the air. Therefore, they are not only recommending a course of action that would lead to war on the Korean Penninsula (if not elsewhere, when alliances are considered), but also trying to cover their backsides for their poor judgement.


chsw on June 22, 2006 at 10:23 PM

Hey, you can get your own Taepongdong-2 missile here! Let’s all try them out!

NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 7:33 PM