Why North Korea Is Planning Long-Range Missile Flight Tests Over Japan and Toward Guam

[WhiskeyGrinder]

I've seen a lot of posts expressing surprise and shock that North Korea has developed its missile capabilities "out of the blue" and "without warning," and that the whole thing seems "suspicious" somehow. It's out of the blue only because you have to dig for useful coverage that's often buried in wonky journals that don't translate well to our media of choice, which increasingly seems to be liberal-leaning aggregators.

I found this article interesting and useful; this writer regularly does an excellent job of demystifying North Korea's actions and teasing out the odd logic behind them. There are people out there who analyze this stuff for a living. Find them and read them. It's important to understand how and why things are happening, and not succumb to conspiracies or despair.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/why-north-korea-is-planning-long-range-missile-flight-tests-over-japan-and-toward-guam/?utm_content=buffere8bd2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

On Thursday morning, hardly 48 hours after U.S. President Donald J. Trump first threatened “fire and fury” for continued threats, North Korea released an unusual statement through its state-run Korean Central News Agency.

(snip)

While Thursday’s statement was certainly unusual, it isn’t entirely out of the blue for North Korea. Analysts had suspected that Pyongyang might seek to conduct a full-range flight test, but it was always unclear if they would one day overfly Japan out of the blue. Now, it seems that Kim Jong-un has chosen to give the Japanese — and the Americans — sufficient notice of its intent.

Importantly, Thursday’s statement hinted at a launch date later this month, should Kim Jong-un give the order. Incidentally, the United States and South Korea will convene their annual Ulchi-Freedom Guardian military exercise soon, giving North Korea what it sees as sufficient cause to stage a developmental missile test that will also serve as a show of force.

Unsaid so far in this analysis is the matter of strategic escalation. Make no mistake: a salvo launch of four Hwasong-12 IRBMs within tens of kilometers of Guam would be the single most threatening direct action that North Korea would have ever taken against U.S. territory. That has serious implications for U.S. strategic decision-making, allied reassurance toward Tokyo, and even escalation.

[Wounded Bear]

1. You kind of lost me at "liberal leaning aggregators"...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. How so? I meant things like Daily Kos, Rachel Maddow, even DU. I could be wrong -- I tend to not use

them because I don't find them informative in the way I like to consume content -- but maybe they've dug into issues such as this and I've missed it. A lot of people consider themselves well-read and up-to-date on the news but then feel lost and unmoored when it comes to suddenly urgent issues like this one, that's what I'm aiming at.

[Initech]

3. I swear Putin is playing both sides for chumps.

He's arming the North Koreans, and giving the intel to Trump. Things are going to get ugly.

[zipplewrath]

4. If NK is rational at all

They are hoping that someone tries to shoot these down. They need to know what can and cannot be done have they have precious little information from which to work. Even a successful intercept would be very instructive.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. The article gets into that at length, with the odds not in our favor.

[zipplewrath]

6. It seemed a tad biased

The presumption was that the NK missiles would work very well, and the interceptors would under perform. The reality is probably just the reverse. What NK is trying to do is very hard, which will make it easier to intercept them. But either way, NK will learn alot. I would not be surprised if we don't oblige them.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. NK has to hit a fairly low bar, which according to the data we have, is completely within their

reach. Our bar is much, much higher, with a not-so-great track record. It's easy to throw a baseball from center field in the general direction of home plate and have it land in a place that is close enough to make people take notice; it's much more difficult to stand on first and try to hit that baseball with one of your own.

[Cosmocat]

10. Good analogy

nm

[zipplewrath]

13. Without getting into numbers

They have to launch multiple weapons, from multiple launch points towards targets VERY far away, and have them arrive within a fairly small window of time, and in a relatively narrow window of space, in order to be effective. Otherwise, they make the job of intercepting them, vastly easier. We, on the other hand, can shoot multiple interceptors and only one has to be successful against each missile we choose to intercept.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. The test missiles over Japan at Guam are likely to be IRBMs, which we don't have such a hot

record on. And there's nothing we can do to intercept anything before it flies over Japan, unless it's a preemptive strike.

[zipplewrath]

16. All true

The intercept would have to be either during the launch phase (which I don't think we have anything in a position to do that) or in the terminal phase. But still, we can take multiple shots in the terminal phase, and if theirs aren't well coordinated, it makes intercepting all that much easier.

[skip fox]

8. What about Maddow's contention that the new estimate of NK's capabilities

come from the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has traditionally been the most alarmist of the several agencies doing analyses?

Maybe she not missing anything, but finding the essentials.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. I don't watch Maddow (as I mentioned), so I don't know which "capabilities" she feels are being

overestimated -- can you expand?

[skip fox]

11. I think it was on Tuesday night.

She said, if I remember correctly, that it was the business of several agencies to provide and analysis of NK's nuclear missile capabilities and that the one which has recently (3 days agao?) come out with the new estimate claiming they have mastered miniaturizing a nuclear weapon to fit on an ICBM, has traditionally been the most alarmist of the several agencies.

If true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, everyone's reaction to the threat might be somewhat tempered, more reasonable, less hysterical.

That's not to say one should discount the DIA analysis, but it would be more useful if they would put it in context.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. But the DIA isn't the only one saying NK can most likely fit a nuke on an ICBM. Speculation about

the compact device has been going on for months, with careful analysis of what NK does tell us through photos and parades indicating that they've been making excellent progress for years. We know they want to fit a nuke on an ICBM. We know they've hit several benchmarks toward that goal successfully. We know that achieving it is well within their capabilities. We know they have further tests scheduled, including an at-range ICBM launch. What more context are you looking for?

[skip fox]

12. Addendum:

DIA is Flynn's old agancy, the one he directed under Obama, the one he was fired from. Here's the show's audio:

At 6:30 "This is not a consensus view." But no body is shooting down the story as they did in 2013 (almost the same story).

So . . . . More context.