The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

Both Iraq and North Korea represent serious dangers to the U.S. I doubt that a theoretical debate concerning which is worse would produce much that is useful. North Korea deliberately chose its moment to reveal its violations of the foolish agreements we made with them in the mid- ninetys. Regardless of which may be the greater danger under various theoretical constructs, we are engaged with Iraq, and the act of retreating from that engagement would seriously exacerbate the danger from both parties. Alternatively, dealing decisively with Iraq will significantly strengthen our hand with Notrth Korea.

In addition, the presumption that one must deal with enemies in exactly the order of the dange they present does not make strategic sense. Even the Godfather in the film took out his most dangerous enemy last in the sequence.

The very name of the topic icludes incorrect question. It is like to ask: which country was more dangerous - Nazi Germany or Japan of '30s-'40s? The reasonable answer is that both were. The same refers to Saddam and Kim: both endanger global security, and both are to be appeased forcefully. Well, if Kim ceases all his nuclear weapons programs, unconditionally restores international control over his nuclear power plants, and ceases manufacturing and trading medium-range missiles, then no military action against his country will be needed. If Saddam complied with the U.S. demands and disarmed his country, and stopped supporting terror, no U.S. action would be needed either.

Isn't it amazing to "all" of us that this administration seems to ignore all the warnings of Al Qaeda attacks on American interests, while it drives this country to war with Iraq who posses on threat at all? Recent reports that North Korea has nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them to our shores are even ignored. Something is drastically wrong-headed with this president when his concentration is set on one not-so-dangerous man like Saddam, while our "war on terror" and the real danger of North Korea is not even addressed. c.i.

Tres
Yes as far as we know it has not been tested as yet. Assuming that it is operational. Which I suppose is more than likely and from the tenor of Tenents remarks It would seem at least to me that he thinks so too? In any event if N. Korea doesn't now it soon will they have the technology.
With that in mind and assuming the worst, they have a missile that will reach the West coast. Who is the greater danger Iraq or N. Korea at this time.
I noticed in today's news that the US is asking the UN to delay the sanctions against N. K. Maybe Bush is getting a little nervous about the loony Toon in N. K.

Who made you think that the administration ignored the Al Qaeda warnings, C.I.? Why then the alertness level was promoted to the 8th degree out of ten (or, in color codes, it became "orange")? Security services are arranged to prevent the terror attack attempt, and I am sure that the special services continue hunting bin Laden, but for obvious reasons no details of their hunt can appear in the mass media.
And the turn of N. Korea will come. If Kim does not get impressed by Saddam's fate, he will be taken care of later.

The DPRK tested a Tae'po-Dong 1 (two stage) missile in 1998. Launched from North Korea the missile fell into the sea well beyond Japan. This is a mid-to-long range missile with a theoretical range of around 1,600k. At its extreme range some analysts believe it might reach Alaska, though others feel it would fall somewhat short. The TD-1 was only tested once, and the data on it isn't sufficient for really good estimates as to its accuracy or reliability. The TD-1 is designed primarily as a chemical and conventional explosives platform, but it's diameter of 1.3 meters could accomodate a nuclear warhead. North Korea is believed to have between 15 and 30 TD-1 missiles available. Time to launch might be extensive, since the components would probably have to be assembled. satellite surveillance is almost surely watching for evidence of preparation.

The Tae'po-Dong 2 is also a two stage missile, but no known test of this vehicle has been seen. Component testing of the TD-2 has been conducted in both North Korea and in Iran. The TD-2 is larger and has a theoretical range of around 2,000k, and could strike most parts of Asia and the South Pacific. This missile almost surely would be able to strike the Pacific Northwest coast of America, and some analysts believe it would be capable of striking as far away as Phoenix, AZ. The TD-2 has a diameter of 2.2 meters and would be an easier platform on which to nest a nuclear warhead, though it is also believed designed mostly for chemical and conventional explosives. The capabilities of the TD-2 are even more difficult to assess than the td-1, because no tests of the package have been made. Probably no more than five of these vehicles would be available to the DPRK at this time, and their performance is would be very unpredictable.

The DPRK is also developing several three stage missiles capable of true intercontinental reach. None of those designs have yet gotten off of the drawing board so far as is known.

The mainstay of the DPRK missile inventory is the Na-Dong series. This missile is a Korean version of the Scud-C and is very reliable, accurate and an effective delivery system over shorter distances. The Na-Dong could reach the Japanese islands, and may be modified to carry a small (in size, not necessarily yield) nuclear warhead. These missiles are known to have been exported to countries in Southwest Asia, both Yeman and Iran are known to possess this missile.

au - I also understand that the SCUDs they sell/sold (?) to Iraq and others have a very high failure rate, often coming apart in midflight. If this is true, how realistic is a fear that they could successfully get a missile to the continental US? (And of course, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.)

Tres,

The North Korean missiles are thought to be better than those used by Saddam during the Gulf War. The Iraqi versions were indeed very unreliable, but the Korean version is believed to be much better. Iraq may have some Korean Na-Dongs, but if they do it's classified information. I hope that the Na-Dong isn't a perfected platform, but don't count on it. These aren't cobbled together missiles, but have been carefully designed and manufactured to perform. Admittedly the information on the Na-Dong is incomplete. I hope we will never have to find out on the battlefield.

Tres
That is something we will only know when they send one over and it hits, or misses. However that is finding out the hard way.

Asherman - I appreciate the correction from a trusted source.

au - I agree. That is not how we want to find out.

Just another perspective from Australia. Thought it has some merit on this subject. c.i.
*****************

"Thankfully nations such as Russia, China and France are all saying no, peace is the only way forward."

--Australia: Greens Member for Cunningham, Michael Organ, speaking to anti-war protestors outside Federal Parliament today (13 Feb), proving that sometimes it pays to just keep your mouth shut.

Politically speaking, it may just mean that war is averted in the Middle East, for the moment at least, because of the maneuverings of these three governments. But we should also remember that these same governments are as morally bankrupt as the U.S. and Iraq. China, in particular, is as tyrannical as any government in history. It hardly carries moral authority when it comes to opposing an invasion of another country. Russia is the same.

And how many of us remember the French atomic bombing of tiny islands in the South Pacific?

How many know? I do: French used to enhance their military power on expense of Polynesian people's health.

At present the greatest danger is confined to the Korean Peninsula, Japan, Okinawa, Northeast Asia and the seas within that circle. The DPRK would probably put a higher priority on targets off the peninsula than on it. Okinawa, being the base of a Marine Division, would likely be targeted. American Battlegroups are harder to target, but they would also be desirable targets. Japan is both symbolic and a likely staging ground for UN/US counter-attacks if the DPRK decides to come South. I don't think that Kim would want to used his limited nuclear arsenal against South Korean targets, but he might.

The North currently has a few nuclear warheads, that number can easily double before the end of this year. North Korean bomb design has not been tested, so they may be "duds". That doesn't mean that they would not be dangerous. Nuclear warheads in our arsenal are mostly designed to render relatively clean, but large yields. Our targeting generally is for air bursts, which tend to generate much less fallout than surface bursts. The DPRK warheads are probably low-yield, say 10-15kt, but very dirty. Their guidance and control of these weapons may not be sophisticated enought to guarantee an airburst.

As time goes on the number of warheads and delivery systems will increase, and their reliability can be expected to improve.

Detonation of untested nuclear warheads isn't as easy as all that. My estimate here is for the worst case scenario, not the best.

Asherman
I was watching CNN this afternoon and they, as all news channels do, had a retired army officer military analyst on. His answer to the question of who was the most immediate threat was immediate and firm. North Korea. He is just one of many I've heard say the same thing. Remember, at the moment Iraq is boxed in and unable to do much damage. NK on the other hand is a bull in a China shop.
Our government has gone from refusing to talk, to talking but refusing to negotiate to negotiating. With the threat of sanctions and military action being taken off the table. What is needed is less bluster and threats when dealing with a mad dog and more finesse? Bush and finesse appear to be strangers. Much, not all, of the difficulty we find ourselves in IMO is his lack of finesse [diplomacy] and antagonistic statements among other things.

I personally also believe that North Korea is the more dangerous of the two situations. If necessary, I believe we could handle both challenges at the same time. The North Korean situation heated up after the United States had already begun to shift its military center of gravity to the Iraq region. Central Command has drawn down PacCom forces, and to try repositioning would be exceedingly costly. It is better to resolve the matter in Iraq first, before more actively engaging the North Koreans.

North Korea can be put on the back burner for a little while, and diplomacy can make an effort to defuse the crisis that Kim has manufactured. Once Iraq is subdued, Kim may well back down as American attention shifts back to him. Kim is crazy, but not stupid. He always tries to take advantage of any potential weakness in his opposition. He perceives the U.S. forces in his theater as vulnerable to threats while Saddam is on center stage. Personally, I think it's way past time to resolve the Korean War. Open military conflict on the Peninsula can be very bloody, but the cost of delay only increases the likely costs of further delay.

With Iraq off stage, I favor a UN resolution giving Kim a very short ultimatum. Dismantle his nuclear program, or it will be dismantled for him. I've described on strategy for achieving our goals earlier here, and anyone interested can read them there.

What is of interest is the films depicting the manpower of North Korea's military. Even with several nuclear weapons and missiles (both not tested for reliability), the question is still which of the two are still the most threat to US security? On that basis, NK wins hand down. Saddam and Iraq is contained - effectively. NK still has some "freedom" to attack its neighbors or the US - no matter how unsure - and stupid. c.i.

This is not a case of either/or. Both Iraq and the DPRK are a clear and present danger to world security. It really probably matters little which is dealt with first. If anything the North Korean situation only makes the move to neutralize Saddam more quickly. Cicero has argued tirelessly for eternal containment of Saddam, North Korea is one of the several reasons that strategy should not be followed. Speed and manuever are key element in current doctrine. We should not allow our forces to be tied up and tied down in one situation too long.

Germany and France are now willing to actively participate in 1) adding more UN inspectors, and 2) add UN military to Iraq. That's a pretty good deal in my books. c.i.

Cicero,

I've been otherwise occupied most of this afternoon, and will be meeting with someone this evening. Thanks for the heads up on French diplomatic movement. Increasing the number of inspectors, etc. has already been rejected by Saddam, so that's a moot point. That France is now publically willing to support a UN backed military solution is heartening, but not entirely unexpected (re. Timber and George's earlier comments).

Tomorrow should witness interesting developments.