North Korea: Nukes, Missiles, and Underfed Soldiers

A regime like North Korea's has its strengths. Like being able to force large numbers of its subjects into military service. North Korea doesn't seem able to feed its soldiers all that well, or provide them with much of the sort of training that requires fuel or bullets: but boy, does Kim Jon Il's country have a lot of soldiers.

Which is a real concern for folks living in South Korea, among others.

Whether or not the under-fed, ill-equipped North Korean soldiers really believe the propaganda they're fed - it's likely that they believe that they'll be punished if the don't do what the nearest general tells them. Like fire on a South Korean naval ship, or set fire to civilian buildings.

Paranoia, No: Prudence, Yes

I've mentioned Frank Burns, the idiot patriot and quack doctor in the M*A*S*H television series. One of my favorite episodes included a vignette of Dr. Burns looking for land mines in his toothpaste.

That's crazy. It's also funny, and fiction.

This is the real world.

Sadly, no matter how many factually-challenged paranoiacs infested America of the 1950s, today's North Korea is a serious - and very real - problem for anyone within about 2,000 miles - give or take a few hundred.

North Korea's nuclear weapons probably aren't all that much. Last year, Russia confirmed that North Korea had tested a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb. (GlobalSecurity.org (May 25, 2009)) That's a little more powerful than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima, but not by all that much. (GlobalSecurity.org (November 14, 1996))

If North Korea decided to launch a nuclear warhead against, say, Tokyo, folks living on the other side of Mt. Odake might not be hurt a bit. Not directly, anyway. But it would still be a really bad day for Tokyo. And the rest of Japan - and the world.

That 'no man is an island' stuff isn't just poetry. We live in a very interconnected world, and what happens in one nation gets felt everywhere.

I have no reason to believe that someone in North Korea will think it's a good idea to obliterate part of a Japanese city. Or one in South Korea. I have little reason to think that someone won't, either.

It'd be nice if everybody would be nice: but the last several thousand years of recorded history don't suggest that 'being nice' is as common a practice as it should be.

North Korea, Scrambling for Power, and "Miscommunications"

As for North Korea: It looks like Kim Jong Il is - willingly or not - turning control of the country over to someone else. Given the sort of operation he's been running, there could be quite a scramble soon, as generals and other wannabe warlords make a grab for power.

Then there are rumors, mentioned in the following article, about "miscommunications or worse within the North's command-and-control structure."

It's the sort of thing that makes me glad to live over a thousand miles from the Pacific Ocean, deep in the heart of North America.

Excerpts from:
"North Korea's military aging but sizeable"
Tim Lister, CNN World (November 24, 2010)

"It's a bit like train-spotting but rather more serious. On October 10, Korea-watchers pored over live televised coverage of a massive military parade in Pyongyang, held to mark the 65th anniversary of North Korea's ruling party. Just like the Soviet parades of yore, it was a chance to see what military hardware the North might be showing off.

"The official news agency said the parade showed 'the will and might of Songun Korea to wipe out the enemy.' The hardware was accompanied by slogans such as 'Defeat the U.S. Military. U.S. soldiers are the Korean People's Army's enemy.' And besides the incredible synchronized goose-stepping, there were tanks and new missiles.

"Analysts paid special attention to the first public appearance of a road-mobile ballistic missile with a projected range of between 3,000 and 4,000 kilometers (roughly 1,900 to 2,400 miles), though reports of its existence had circulated for several years.....

"...North Korea's nuclear capability and ballistic missile technology are its trump card, to make up for its aging conventional forces and as a bargaining chip in negotiations. So that's what receives the bulk of funding and expertise. But despite economic stagnation, technological limitations and international sanctions, its conventional forces can't be discounted, if only because of their size.

"According to South Korean analysts, the North scraped together what little foreign exchange it had to buy $65 million of weapons from China, Russia and eastern Europe between 2002 and 2008. One example: It appears to have bought Chinese-made ZM-87 anti-personnel lasers, using one to 'illuminate' two U.S. Army Apache helicopters flying along the southern side of the Demilitarized Zone in 2003. None of the crew members was injured.

"China says it continues to be open to military collaboration with Pyongyang and last month welcomed a senior North Korean official to Beijing to 'enhance coordination of the two militaries.' China is thought to have supplied the North with multiple rocket launchers and spare parts for planes, among other equipment. Pyongyang has also turned to Iran and Egypt for military transfers.

"Much of the North's hardware is locally built using Chinese and Russian templates. It has begun deploying a new tank, called the P'okpoong (Storm), which is modeled on the Russian T-62 tank but hardly a match for modern U.S. battle tanks. It's not clear how many of these are in service, but Jane's Armed Forces Editor Alexander von Rosenbach says it is thought that only a few have been delivered -- and they lack devices like thermal imaging sights.

"Also on show at the October parade: a new surface-to-air missile similar to a Chinese model. Jane's concluded that it represented 'a major expansion in North Korea's air defense potential,' with a radar/guidance system that would be harder to jam. And although little is known about the size and scope of the North's artillery, the barrage fired this week at Yeonpyeong Island suggests that it can't be ignored.

"The North Korean regime has also devoted great resources to developing its navy, not with battleships but fast-attack vessels and an array of submarines. Jane's estimates that it has more than 400 surface vessels. And it is not hesitant to use its maritime forces, as demonstrated by the sinking of the 1,200-ton South Korean corvette Cheonan by a torpedo in March. But in a confrontation, the South Korean navy is likely to come off best, as happened in a firefight in 1999.

"The main weakness of the North's military is a chronic shortage of computers, modern command and control and electronic warfare assets -- in other words, much of what makes up the 21st-century battlefield. At the same time, South Korea has used its economic strength to modernize its armed forces: for example, building three $1 billion Aegis-class destroyers to counter ballistic missiles.

"The same applies in the air. North Korea's air force largely comprises aging Soviet MiG fighters (though it has some MiG 29s) .... In addition, the North's air force has suffered fuel shortages, and Jane's estimated that the North's fighter pilots may get as little as 25 flying hours per year. The North Koreans also have a large fleet of Russian-design biplanes that would be better suited to crop-spraying but could be used to drop special forces behind enemy lines in the event of conflict.

"To compensate for obsolescence, the North deploys boots on the ground in great numbers. Jane's estimates that its standing army numbers just over 1 million personnel, with reserves estimated at more than 7 million. But North Korean soldiers are poorly fed, according to analysts and reports from defectors, and rarely train due to scarcity of fuel and ammunition....

"...'With the ongoing leadership transition in North Korea, there have been rumors of discontent within the military, and the current actions may reflect miscommunications or worse within the North's command-and-control structure,' geopolitical risk analysis firm Stratfor says....

"...Short of a general assault, the North clearly has enough in its arsenal to cause damage and death to its adversary, as the torpedo attack in March and the barrage this week have shown. And it has thousands of artillery pieces close to the Demilitarized Zone, which is just 30 kilometers (18 miles) from Seoul. Recent events show that it is also quite ready to exploit the element of surprise...."

Related posts:

• "Korea: 'South Korean Puppet Group' and the Real World"
  (November 23, 2010)
• "South Korean Navy Ship Just Happens to be Sinking"
  (March 26, 2010)
• "Cyber-Attack Started July Fourth: Common Sense, Security, and the War on Terror"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "North Korea's Still There, Still a 'Serious Concern' "
  (June 24, 2009)
• "North Korea and the Kim Jong Dynasty: Not All Countries are the Same"
  (June 9, 2009)
• "North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Brinksmanship, and Miscalculation"
  (May 27, 2009)
• "North Korea's City-Busting Nuke, a New Missile, and Diplomacy"
  (May 25, 2009)
• "North Korea and Missile Concerns: Nations are Not All Identical"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea, Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  (September 18, 2007)

Missile Launched Near Los Angeles: Prelude to Attack, or the Next Bond Movie?

---

Update (9:01 p.m. Central, November 9, 2010)

There's a really good chance that this was the contrail of a jet - seen from a modestly unusual angle. I've discussed this in another post:

• "Los Angeles Contrail: Missile? Jet? Giant Atomic Ants?
  (November 9, 2010)

---

At this moment, I'm assuming that the "substantial missile" spotted by a KCBS news helicopter was launched by:

• Filmmakers
• Someone in a branch of the U.S. military who
  • Didn't fill out all the right paperwork
  • Pushed the wrong button
  • Is working on something very hush-hush
    • Just off the coast of Los Angeles?!!
• Somebody else

It's the 'somebody else' option that has me - a little concerned. It would be a major coup for one of the outfits whose leaders have decided that America is the reason for their problems. In the "counting coup" sense of the word.


(KCBS, via FOXNews, used w/o permission)
"Nov. 8: An unexplained missile is shot off the California coast."

I'm pretty sure it's not the work of:

• Ron Paul supporters
• The CIA
• Space-alien shape-shifting lizard people

I was going to put 'the commies' in that list - but that's actually a remote possibility.

North Korea might be able to at least borrow a launch platform - maybe a submarine or an innocuous-looking surface vessel.

China has the capability for a launch of this sort. But their thing lately seems to be hack attacks on computer networks and toxic Snickers Peanut Funsize and baby formula. (March 20, 2010, February 19, 2010, May 25, 2009, October 4, 2008, September 29, 2008) I'll admit that the toxic candy and baby formula might not have been intended as an attack. China seems to be having trouble adjusting to the idea that folks not under their control really don't like melamine in their food. And won't keep quiet when it shows up. Which is another topic.

From the news:

" Pentagon calls mystery missile 'unexplained,' cannot rule out threat"
news.com.au (November 10, 2010) (International Dateline: It's 'tomorrow' there)

"THE Pentagon said a missile launch off the southern coast of California remained "unexplained" and that its mysterious origins meant that it was not possible to rule out any threat to the homeland.

"Earlier yesterday, NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and NORTHCOM (United States Northern Command) officials told Fox there was no threat.

"However, Pentagon Spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan would not confirm that because the military does not know what the missile was or where it came from.

"Col Lapan added that the incident did not appear to be a regularly scheduled test, as no warnings to mariners or airmen appeared to be issued ahead of its launch.

"The contrail was caught on camera by a KCBS news helicopter at around sunset Monday evening, approximately 50km out to sea and west of Los Angeles.

"The missile appeared to be launched from the water, and not from US soil, Col Lapan added.

"The military was trying to solve the mystery using the video from KCBS as there was no indication that NORAD and NORTHCOM were able to detect it independently...."

---

"Pentagon Has 'No Clue' Who Launched SoCal Missile"
News | Breaking, NBC San Diego (November 9, 2010)

"Someone launched a missile near Los Angeles Monday night and as of Tuesday morning, the Pentagon still doesn't know who.

"A local television station showed video of the launch spotted around 5 p.m. captured by a traffic helicopter around sunset. The location was reported to be west of Los Angeles, north of Catalina Island and approximately 35 miles out to sea, KFMB reported.

"It does appear a substantial missile was launched into the skies over Southern California Monday evening but no one in the military is owning up to it yet, according to NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski...."

Time to Panic? Probably Not

I suppose I could emulate red-white-and-blue-blooded 'real' Americans, go into full panic mode and start ranting about how people I don't agree with are to blame for letting the commies wipe motherhood, apple pie and America from the face of the earth.

Or, if my point of view was closer to that of America's current dominant culture, I could rant about how this is what happens when people don't believe in global warming, won't recognize a person's right to marry his pillow, and aren't afraid of acid rain. Wait a minute. Acid rain's sort of démodé by now.

The pillow guy is in Korea, by the way. I'm not making that up. (A Catholic Citizen in America (August 7, 2010))

Back to that mystery missile:

My guess - and hope - is that the missile was fired off by a film company that didn't let folks know what they were going to do. Or hoped for the sort of publicity they'll get if this was a private launch. Another strong possibility, in my opinion, is that someone in the American military either didn't file the right paperwork to let the chain of command know what was happening - or pushed the wrong button.

In the latter case, my sympathy is with whoever goofed. Considering how much it'll cost to find out what happened - it isn't the sort of thing that can be called a 'little' mistake.

Or, maybe someone's finding out what happens when a missile is launched within a few dozen miles of one of America's biggest cities.

That's the possibility that's got my attention.

In the news:

• "Pentagon Has 'No Clue' Who Launched SoCal Missile"
  News | Breaking, NBC San Diego (November 9, 2010)
• " Pentagon calls mystery missile 'unexplained,' cannot rule out threat"
  news.com.au (November 10, 2010) (the date? International Dateline)

American Military Tests Antimissile System: Smart Move, I Think

Well, that's interesting:

"Test of newest U.S. missile defense technology will simulate attack by Iran"
CNN (December 19, 2009)

"The U.S. military's Missile Defense Agency will practice protecting the United States from a simulated Iranian missile attack next month in an exercise using the agency's newest missile-killing technology, Pentagon officials said Friday.

Previous tests have been focused on a missile trajectory that mimics an attack from North Korea, but the January test will have a trajectory and distance resembling an intercontinental ballistic missile launch from Iran...."

One point that makes this newsworthy is that similar tests had been performed, simulating incoming missiles from North Korea. This time, the virtual warheads started in Iran.

The conventional wisdom I encountered, some thirty to forty years back, was that just about everything was America's fault. Like the Soviet Union doing mean things.

The idea was that if the capitalistic, imperialistic warmonger military-industrial complex would just apologize for causing poverty, racism, and bad crops, and abolish the armed forces: everything would be nice. Given the starting assumptions that folks who held similar views had, it practically made sense.

It's Different, When You're in Charge

I've said this before: President Obama is not, in my opinion, a fool; nor is he, again in my opinion, particularly stupid. He also probably wants to have a second term as president of the United States. A prerequisite condition for that is that there to be a United States to be president of.

Whatever sort of 'happy face' rhetoric he (or any other candidate) used during the election campaign: now that he's president Obama has shown a (distressing, from some points of view) tendency to act as though there are people out there who aren't very nice, and who want to kill Americans.

Imagine.

I Don't agree with him on many points: but credit where credit is due.

Iranian missiles reaching American states?

The last I read, Iran's missiles could reach most of the Middle East, the more heavily-populated parts of Russia, and some of Europe and Africa.

I doubt that they've got intercontinental-range missiles yet. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that Iran could outfit a cargo ship with a launch platform and deliver missiles from not-all-that-far offshore: anywhere.

I live a little east of the geographical center of North America, a thousand miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Central Minnesota is, I would think, a fairly low-value target anyway. I mean to say, would you get quite the same bang for your buck, wiping out a place like Long Prairie, Sauk Centre, or Glenwood: compared with the impact of finishing the job in New York City or Washington?

Still, although I'm pretty sure I live far away - and upwind - of the prime targets, I'd just as soon not have any cities subjected to instant urban renewal.

That's not "American cities" - any cities. Iran's Ayatollahs and Islamic crazies hate America - and Israel - but they don't seem all that fond of most other people and places, either.

Related posts:

• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)
• "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
  (December 5, 2009)
• "Imperialist American Aggressors Attack Poland?"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again"
  (October 16, 2009)
• "Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and "What the heck did they tell him?""
  (September 17, 2009)
• "North Korea and the Kim Jong Dynasty: Not All Countries are the Same"
  (June 9, 2009)
• "Iran Has Heavy Metal for Bomb, No Bomb: Yet"
  (March 1, 2009)
• "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
  (January 25, 2008)

In the news:

• "Test of newest U.S. missile defense technology will simulate attack by Iran"
  CNN (December 19, 2009)

Obama, Iran, Missiles, Europe, and "What the heck did they tell him?"

It's in today's news: The (diabolical, according to some) Bush administration's plans to put a (shudder) missile defense system in Europe are being dropped.

Peaceniks¹ of America have little reason to cheer, though. President Barack Obama, the 'change' president, is changing the Bush-era missile defense system plans. Not, apparently, scrapping them.

"... The 'new missile defense architecture in Europe ... will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the... program' that former President George W. Bush proposed, Obama said.

"Obama said the change of gears was based on an 'updated intelligence assessment' about Iran's ability to hit Europe with missiles.

"The Islamic republic's 'short- and medium-range' missiles pose the most current threat, he said, and 'this new ballistic missile defense will best address' that threat...."
(CNN)

As I've said before, "it's different when you're in charge." (September 27, 2007)

Why I Hope None of My Descendants Become President

I'd have said "kids," but I hope that they're not the last of the people my wife and I have launched. God willing, there will soon be grandchildren - and I tend to look at the long term, in both directions.

It's been a while since I've seen the phrase, "it's good to be king." The idea is that it's pleasant, on the whole, to be at the top of the ladder in terms of authority.

In a way, that can be true: in the short term. Take Saddam Hussein, for example. His lifestyle was lavish, even by American standards. Until two dozen or so nations 'unilaterally' jumped on his throat.

That's a sort of worst-case scenario, of course.

Most American presidents I've seen have aged - sometimes fast - once they got into the Oval Office. Understandably. There's a lot of responsibility that goes along with the perks of having a live-in cook and domestic staff.

Last year, after Barack Obama became President-Elect Obama, a strictly-for-laughs blog came out with a post that included before-and-after photos, and this paragraph:

"...This is after less than a day of briefings and staff meetings where they tell him all the big secrets. Like about the alien plan to invade Earth in February. Like the White House television uses an antenna and won't get H.D. Like Mississippi and Alabama will probably continue to be states. You know, junk like that...."
(Oddly Enough, Reuters)

Oddly Enough's author was (probably) kidding "about the alien plan to invade Earth in February."

Unhappily, not all threats to America - and the rest of the world - are quite that imaginary.

Which is why I rather hope that my descendants do what my forebears have done for generations out of mind: stayed at or below the midpoint of the economic ladder; and well away from positions that would require them to make life-and-death decisions for a nation.

Iran's Been a Threat for Years - What Changed?

What I find a bit unsettling about President Obama's decision is that "updated intelligence assessment" phrase. It's been public knowledge for years that Iran had ballistic and/or cruise missiles that could deliver a warhead to parts of eastern Europe. Nuclear weapons, not yet: but even a conventional warhead could do noticeable damage.

Years from now, the details will probably come out. Meanwhile, I prefer to hope that the president is making the best of what for him is a bad situation: having to provide a viable defense for America's European neighbors; while making it appear that he isn't like the 'diabolical' President Bush.

An alternative explanation for Obama's 'get defenses up fast' approach is that

• Iran's gotten new technology
• Enhanced it's existing weapons inventory
• Decided to fire missiles, ready or not
• Some combination of the above

- - - And that we've got a limited time in which to keep places like Kiev, Bucharest, Budapest and Belgrade from experiencing instant urban renewal.

Related posts:

• "Russian Submarines Near America: There's Probably a Reason"
  (August 4, 2009)
  Particularly
  • What Possible Reason Could There be For Missile Defense Systems in Europe?
  • Yes: Iran Could Bomb European Targets
• "Afghanistan, Helmand Province: It's Different, When You're in Charge"
  (July 3, 2009)
• "Of President Obama, Politics, and the Another War-on-Terror Blog"
  (June 21, 2009)
• "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!"
  (January 11, 2009)
• "President-Elect Obama's Problem With Left-Wing Bloggers"
  (December 22, 2008)
• "President-Elect Barack Obama and Rhambo: Change Begins Now"
  (November 7, 2008)
  • A post inspired by
    "What the heck did they tell him?"
    Oddly Enough, Reuters Blogs (November 6, 2008)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Milestones in Iraq and Iran"
  (February 4, 2008)
• "The War on Terror: Not Just America's Problem"
  (December 31, 2007)
• "Jews Flee Iran, Fearing Persecution: Sound Familiar?"
  (December 25, 2007)
• "It's Different, When You're in Charge"
  (September 27, 2007)

In the news:

• "Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan"
  CNN (September 17, 2009)

---

Peaceniks¹ Peacenik: ">someone who prefers negotiations to armed conflict in the conduct of foreign relations". (self?) defined at Princeton's WordNet) A peacenik is certainly not one those big, rough, icky (shudder) military types, who make it safe for peaceniks to hold anti-war demonstrations.

Russian Submarines Near America: There's Probably a Reason

Two Russian submarines have been in the waters off America's east coast for several days.

They're in international waters, and as FOXNews put it:

"...While the incident raises eyebrows, it did not trigger the more intense reaction by the U.S. military that Russia prompted when two of its bombers buzzed an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific in February 2008. U.S. fighter planes intercepted the two Russian fighters, including one that flew directly over the USS Nimitz twice at an altitude of about 2,000 feet...."
(FOXNews)

I think "raised eyebrows" is a pretty good response. Although the submarines are nowhere near doing a real-life recreation of the sort of silliness featured in "The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming," I also think it's reasonable to wonder what they're doing there.

This week's situation is nowhere near as provocative - and goofy - as the buzzing of the Nimitz, back in February of 2008. As I wrote then, "...Russia seems to be reverting to the Soviet Union-era habit of flexing military muscle...."

There may be a reasonable purpose in having submarines patrolling international waters off the east coast. Or, not.

Russian Submarines: A Diplomatic Gesture?

I think it's very possible that the presence of those submarines as a sort of diplomatic gesture.

"...The latest incident, which was first reported by The New York Times, comes amid increased Russian military activity in the region, and as the administration of President Obama works to thaw tense relations with Moscow over plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

"Just last week a senior Pentagon official said the administration is looking at options for the plan, which would install 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow told Congress members that the Obama administration is looking at various configurations as part of its review of missile defense plans...."
(FOXNews)

That "missile defense system in Central Europe" is something that Russia's Putin likened to ballistic missiles that the Soviet Union set up in Cuba, a few decades back. (October 26, 2007)

What Possible Reason Could There be For Missile Defense Systems in Europe?

The defense system could suggest that it was intended, at least in part, to defend Europe from incoming missiles from Iran. Why Mr. Putin didn't want the system to be set up isn't entirely clear to me. I suppose it could have something with Russian politics: playing on a fear of big, bad America and those Yankee imperialists we've heard so much about.

Yes: Iran Could Bomb European Targets

As for Iranian missiles hitting targets in Europe: The Shahab-5 and 6 missiles, with ranges of 5,500 km and 10,000 km respectively, could hit targets in Europe. Happily, these missiles are not in production. Yet.

Iran does, however, have a dozen X-55 Long Range Cruise Missiles. It looks like someone in Ukraine sold the cruise missiles to Iran - illegally - around 2005.

Good news: The cruise missiles weren't shipped with the nuclear warheads they're designed to deliver.

Bad news: With a range of 3,000 km, they could reach parts of eastern Europe.

More bad news: Iranian leaders' protestations notwithstanding, there's a very good chance that Iran is on its way to building its own nuclear bombs.

Related posts:

• "Iran Has Heavy Metal for Bomb, No Bomb: Yet"
  (March 1, 2009)
• "Iran Launched Satellite, Probably: and North Korea's Preparing for Launch"
  (February 3, 2009)
• " 'Quagmire's' Back: Georgia, Russia, NATO, Bush, and the Blame Game"
  (August 24, 2008)
• "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
  (June 21, 2008)
• "Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the War on Terror"
  (August 10, 2008)
• "What is Russia Thinking?"
  (February 12, 2008)
• "Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?"
  (January 19, 2008)
• "Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?"
  (October 26, 2007)

In the news:

• "Russian subs patrolling off U.S. east coast: report"
  Reuters (August 4, 2009)
• "AP sources: Russian subs patrolling off East Coast"
  The Associated Press (August 4, 2009)
• "Defense Officials: Russian Subs Patrolling off East Coast of United States"
  FOXNews (August 4, 2009)

Background:

• "Iran Missiles"
  Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), GlobalSecurity.org
• "X-55 Long Range Cruise Missile"
  Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), GlobalSecurity.org ()

North Korea's Launch: Watch Out for Incoming Communications Satellites?

Comments on North Korea's recent test of a

• communications satellite which even now is playing tunes in praise of Dear Leader
• partially successful ballistic missile which
  • Successfully detached its first stage
  • Before malfunctioning

Take your pick. Reaction to North Korea's [successful / not entirely successful] launch of a [communications satellite / mockup nuclear warhead on an IRBM] isn't all one tune, either:

• "I bet Japan isn't happy right now. They're probably still edgy about missiles since the nuclear bombs our terrorizing government dropped in World War II."
  (BlogCatalog Discussion thread)
• "...Kim Jong-Il wept tears of regret that the money it cost could not have been used to help his people...."
  (AFP, reporting on a North Korea state press story)
• "...Media and officials of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Tuesday hailed the successful launch of a long-rang rocket that put an experimental satellite into orbit...."
  (Xinhua: Background on the New China News Agency at GlobalSecurity.org)
• "...'The U.N. Security Council should respond properly and teach North Korea a lesson that it has to pay for the act of provocation.'..."
  (Japan's foreign minister Hirofumi Nakasone (Taiwan News))
• "...The North Korean report was a a bit of a blast from the past because North Korea made a similar claim in 1998 that it had sent a satellite into orbit playing the exact same two songs...." (Global News Blog (Reuters))
• "...'This issue also involves the right of all countries to peaceful use of outer space,' she [China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu] said referring to the resolution 1718 passed by the UNSC after North Korea's nuclear test in 2006...."
  (The Times of India)

It's a Communications Satellite - It Has to be a Communications Satellite

I think that last comment shows how important it is that as many people as possible assume, officially, that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea launched a communications satellite - successfully, of course - and not anything resembling a weapons system.

In some circles, it doesn't matter whether or not North Korea launched a communications satellite, a mockup nuclear warhead, or radioactive kimchi. America is a racist terrorist imperialist oppressor, and that's all there is to it.

'Real Americans' have equally odd ways of dealing with reality.

North Korea's way of handling the real world is to carefully manage what its citizens see and hear:

"...'Chants of jubilation are reverberating throughout the country on the news that our satellite is beaming back the "Song of General Kim Il-Sung" and the "Song of General Kim Jong-Il,"' the ruling communist party paper Rodong Sinmun said, referring to the North's founding president and his son.

"It reported that Kim Jong-Il 'felt regret for not being able to spend more money on the people's livelihoods and was choked with sobs.'

" 'Our people will still understand,' it quoted him as saying...." (AFP)

Those are the songs that the Reuters blog referred to, by the way.

Communications Satellite Trumps People's Livelihoods: Why?

The AFP article neglected to explain why Dear Leader " 'felt regret for not being able to spend more money on the people's livelihoods and was choked with sobs.' " Perhaps it's because somehow it's vital that North Korea deploy communications satellites - at any cost. And, that American terrorism and oppression are to blame.

There are other possibilities, of course. North Korea's leadership, under Kim Jong Il, may have determined that 'communications satellites' are vital to the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea. After all, they're constantly attacked by warmongers.

This article, from October, 2008, shows what North Korea (says) it's facing:

"The U.S. and south Korean military bosses held the 40th U.S.-south Korea "'annual security consultative meeting' in Washington on Oct. 17 at which they reaffirmed the 'strong defense commitments' of the U.S. to south Korea and adopted a 17-point joint statement the keynote of which is the 'rapid dispatch of reinforcements in contingency on the Korean Peninsula'....

"...Availing itself of this opportunity, the DPRK warns the south Korean puppets acting war servants of the U.S. imperialists.

"These war servants who go reckless to attack fellow countrymen with arms provided by their American master will not escape from the fate of a tiger-moth as they are cursed and denounced by all the fellow countrymen.

"If the enemy makes a preemptive attack at any cost, the powerful army of Songun and people of the DPRK will deal merciless retaliatory blows at the aggressors...."
("KNS, via GlobalSecutity.org)

Incoming Communications Satellites?

I hope that the current 'communications satellite' launch is more a matter of hardball diplomacy, than preparation for an anticipatory counteroffensive against U. S. imperialists. Or 'puppets' of USI.

The recent test wasn't as unsuccessful as some make it out to be. The vehicle successfully 'staged' - separated from the first stage - a technically challenging process.

I readily acknowledge North Korea's technical abilities. The country apparently is very close to IRBM nuclear capabilities. And, judging by a recent incident, where Syria complained that the Jews blew up a Syrian reactor that didn't exist, North Korea has become a moderately successful exporter of nuclear technology.

I have no problem with another country having high tech. Nations with a vibrant economy and a taste for technology make great trading partners.

North Korea, on the other hand, seems to be a self-isolated and possibly paranoid dictatorship. When an outfit like that gets nuclear weapons and delivery systems, there's a danger that one of the leaders will start believing his own propaganda.

Related posts:

• "North Korea and Missile Concerns: Nations are Not All Identical"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "North Korea Launches Missile; U.N. Security Council to Meet: Here We Go Again"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "North Korea - Again - Still - North Korea"
  (March 26, 2009)
• "North Korea Set to Launch - Communications Satellite?"
  (February 27, 2009)
• "Syria Accuses America, North Korea Threatens South Korea: Nothing New Here"
  (October 28, 2008)
• "North Korea Un-disables Reactor"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "North Korea Disables Reactor: Progress, of a Sort"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "Syria, the IAEA, Israel, Claims and Denials"
  (June 22, 2008)

News and views:

• "Russia wants deal on U.N. response to N.Korea launch"
  Reuters (April 7, 2009)
• "N Korea's satellite launch not same as missile test: China"
  Times of India (April 7, 2009)
• "Japan warns against UN inaction on NKorea launch"
  Taiwan News Online (April 7, 2009)
• "North Korean Revolutionary Tunes Sink to Bottom of the Sea"
  Global News Blog, Reuters (April 7, 2009)
• "DPRK officials, media laud successful satellite launch"
  Xinhua (April 7, 2009)
• "NKorea's Kim 'weeps' at historic rocket launch"
  AFP (April 6, 2009)
• "Mystery over fate of N. Korean rocket"
  CNN (April 6, 2009)
• "Anti-DPRK Military Confab of U.S. and S. Korean Warmongers Blasted"
  Korean Central News Agency of DPRK via Korea News Service (KNS), via Global Security.org (October 29, 2009)

---

Updated/correction (April 7, 2009)

The Xinhua (April 7, 2009) link in "News and views" was incorrect, and has been fixed.

---

CNN says status of North Korean vehicle is a "mystery." North Korea says their communications satellite is cheerfully singing the praises of Dear Leader and his father, while "...Officials from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the U.S. Northern Command said the payload cleared Japanese airspace, but later fell into the Pacific Ocean...." The Japanese government says the same thing, and has ships headed to the impact points to recover debris.

In a way, it's a case of he said/they said: in this case involving an invisible communications satellite emitting undetectable signals.

North Korea and Missile Concerns: Nations are Not All Identical

North Korea's launched another missile. It worked, but not perfectly. The North Korean rocket did successfully separate and start its second stage ("staging," it's called). That's doing pretty well, even if the vehicle didn't complete its flight as planned. (Space Daily)

A discussion thread today included some rather familiar attitudes:

• "eh, everyone can shout and posture but at the end of the day they are still a sovereign nation and can do what they want. ..."
• "Other countries launch missles [!] why not NK also?..."
• "I bet Japan isn't happy right now. They're probably still edgy about missiles since the nuclear bombs our terrorizing government dropped in World War II."
• "The missile's third stage failed and the satellite fell into the ocean. They're still a long way from being a threat. That said, who are we to dictate who can and who can't launch missiles? China is a much greater threat yet they're our number one trading partner."
  (BlogCatalog Discussion thread)

There are some good points there: North Korea is a sovereign nation. Just like America, Guinea-Bissau, India, and Burkina Faso.

I think that one reason the United Nations Security Council is meeting, and why Japan (among other nations) is concerned, is that not all nations are exactly alike.

Related post:

• "North Korea Launches Missile; U.N. Security Council to Meet: Here We Go Again"
  (April 5, 2009)
  • Includes list of other related posts

News and views:

• "Missile defence work needed, North Korea must change"
  Reuters (April 5, 3009)
• "Obama's plan: Get rid of all nukes "
  nzherald.com.nz (April 5, 2009)
• "U.N. council rushes to respond to North Korea launch"
  Reuters (April 5, 3009)
• "Rocket programme to cost NKorea 500 mln dlrs: analyst"
  Space Daily (April 5, 2009)
• "NKorea rocket launch partial success: US expert"
  Space Daily (April 5, 2009)
• "US wants jailed journalists in NKorea [!] freed soon"
  The Associated Press (April 5, 2009)
• "North Korea: pathetic, but still dangerous"
  telegraph.co.uk (April 5, 2009)

North Korea Launches Missile; U.N. Security Council to Meet: Here We Go Again

North Korea launched a missile that might be a communications launch vehicle (North Korea's version) or a missile which could deliver a nuclear bomb (quite a few other nations' version).

Now, the United Nations Security Council is going to talk about it, and national leaders will say what they think about it. President Obama already has. He doesn't approve.

I can't say I'm too happy about the situation myself.

The Associated Press ran an op-ed that may have hit the nail on the head: North Korea wants something. That's why they did that test-firing.

It's too early to tell what Dear Leader wants. It could be money, one-on-one talks between North Korea and America, lifting of U.N. sanctions, a crate of lobsters: I'd say that almost anything's possible.

That one-on-one meeting with the American government is a big deal for North Korea's leadership. America has been meeting (or trying to) with North Korea, as part of a six-nation arrangement. That doesn't give North Korea the status it would get if North Korean diplomats had a private meeting with American diplomats.

Related posts:

• "North Korea - Again - Still - North Korea"
  (March 26, 2009)
• "North Korea Set to Launch - Communications Satellite?"
  (February 27, 2009)
• "North Korea Un-disables Reactor"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "North Korea Disables Reactor: Progress, of a Sort"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "Syria's Reactor and North Korea - Again"
  (May 5, 2008)
  Includes list of posts related to Syria's reactor, Israel's air raid on the reactor, more

News and views:

• "Obama: N. Korea launch threatens nations near, far"
  The Associated Press (April 5, 2009)
• "Analysis: N. Korea rocket gambit bid for attention"
  The Associated Press (April 5, 2009)
• "U.N. Security Council to meet on N. Korea launch"
  CNN (April 5, 2009)
• "Q+A: What's in store for North Korea at the U.N.?"
  Reuters (April 5, 2009)

Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile: Cause for Concern

The news is calling it a "kill weapon" - which strikes me as a bit redundant.

The point is that there's good reason to believe that China has developed an anti-ship missile that could deliver a carrier-destroying warhead. Anti-missile systems like the Aegis might be able to destroy the missile before it reached its target.

On the other hand, they might not.

The Chinese missile seems to be a modified Dong Feng 21 missile: a ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers. I think that works out to around 1,250 miles.

So What?

The War on Terror (a term which is no longer officially sanctioned) doesn't involve China, right?

I certainly hope so. But, most of a cyberspy network just happens to be in China: and has been active enough for mainstream news media to mention it.

And, if China did get involved in a conflict with America, and allied itself with Al Qaeda, it wouldn't be the first Odd Couple. Remember Germany and Japan, back in WWII? Things have changed in the sixty years since the ethnically-conscious national socialists in Germany allied themselves with, of all countries, Japan: but I think that's still a reminder that differences don't necessarily make that much of a difference.

Vaguely related posts:

• "No More "War on Terror" - Officially?"
  (March 30, 2009)
• "Cyberspy Network Hacked 103 Countries' Systems"
  (March 29, 2009)
• "Iran and Russia and Germany and Japan"
  (October 19, 2007)

Background:

• "Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers"
  U. S. Naval Institute (March 31, 2009)

Iran Launched Satellite, Probably: and North Korea's Preparing for Launch

"Video: Iran Launches Satellite, Allegedly (Updated)"
Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, Wired (February 3, 2009)

"Iran says it's sent a domestically-built satellite into orbit. It's a troubling development, if true. Much of the gear and the know-how behind a space launch can also be used for ballistic missiles.

That's the bad news. The good news is that Tehran has a long, colorful history of trying to BS the world about their military capabilities...."

Couldn't have put it better myself. I think the Wired blog's hit the nail on the head: News from Iran, even news with pictures, should be taken with a grain of salt.

This time, though, the pictures are videos - which I'd think are tougher to fake. And, as the Wired blog points out, two objects have been tracked in orbit, right about where the Iranian satellite and upper stage might be.

Looks like this time the news from Iran actually happened, as described.

Versions of the Iranian video show up quite a few places on YouTube, including the Associated Press clip used by Wired:

"Raw Video: Iran Test Launches Space Rocket"
AssociatedPress, YouTube (February 3, 2009)
video (0:54)

"Iran's state radio says the country has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit...."

"Fars News Coverage of Safir-e-Omid Launch"
armscontrolwonk, YouTube (February 3, 2009)
video (1:10)

Traditional news media ran rather more conventional headlines:

• "Iran satellite launch cause for concern-Pentagon"
  Reuters (February 3, 2009)
• "Iranian satellite raises US fears"
  Al Jazeera (February 3, 2009)
• "Report: Iran sends domestic satellite to orbit"
  The Associated Press (February 3, 2009)

Old-school news media seem to be a bit cautious this time. I think they may remember the doctored photo they ran as the real deal last summer: "Iran's Missile Test, ah, Enhanced with Digital Fakery"
(July 10, 2008)

North Korea Prepares to Launch: Not the Most Reassuring News

Looks like North Korea is getting ready to test-fire a missile. They could be ready in a couple of months. Or, they could be towing a large cylindrical object around, just to impress people.

This is a little unsettling, since the North Korean missile seems to be an upgraded version of their Taepodong 2. The thing could have a range of 4,150 miles.

Which makes Alaska a possible target. And Japan. And heavily populated parts of China. Other countries could be affected, too: check it out on a globe.

This isn't good news, but it's possible that North Korea is just getting ready to shake down America and other countries for cash, cargo, and concessions.

More, at "North Korea Seen Preparing for Long-Range Missile Launch" (Global Security Newswire (February 3, 2009)) and "North Korea has second long-range missile launch site: analyst" (AFP via GlobalSecurity.org (September 10, 2008)).

One More Thing: North Korean Nukes

There's a good possibility that North Korea has enough fissile material to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs. Actually putting the things together is another matter, but I wouldn't underestimate Dear Leader's country.

Pleasant dreams?

Iran's Missile Test, ah, Enhanced with Digital Fakery

It's a cool photo: Four missiles rising into the sky at a dramatic diagonal, demonstrating the armed might of Iran.

Just one problem: There were really only three in the air. The fourth one was a copy of one of the other missiles, combined with smoke on the ground from another.


(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Wow! Impressive, isn't it?


(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Oops! One's still on the ground.

The official Iranian photo was on the front page of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, and The Chicago Tribune, before the Associated Press got a copy of the pre-enhanced photo. Newspapers weren't the only ones embarrassed: online news services like BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, and NYTimes.com were displaying the doctored photo, too.

The Associated Press found the original photo, and distributed it: and there's a pretty good discussion - with photos - of what happened at The New York Times blog, "In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many"
(The Lede/The New York Times (July 10, 2008)).

I think I understand why Sepah News, Iran's Revolutionary Guard's media section, improved the look of their original photo. Showing a test-firing of four mighty missiles, where one is just sitting on the ground, just doesn't have the impact of showing a test firing where all four worked.

And, I'll have to admit that Iran's retouching was much better done than Adnan Hajj's, back in 2006. You may not remember him: He's the Reuter's freelance photographer whose sub-amateurish work on a photo showed extra smoke - and a duplicated building - in a Beirut, Lebanon, suburb.


(from BBC, used w/o permission)

Pictures Don't Lie

But people do.

Even untouched photos can tell a story that isn't true. Here's how:

• Leave something out - Let's make up a ridiculous (and quite fictional) example
  • A photo of a woman in some third-world country
    • On one knee
    • In tears
    • Looking pleadingly at the camera
    • In the background, a pile of burning debris
  • What won't be in the caption
    • The debris is a pile of garbage with no connection to her, or her family
    • She's crying because the photographer is standing on her foot.
• Put something in - This is speculation on my part
  • A photo of what used to be a building
    • Slabs of concrete with twisted rebar, lying at odd angles
    • Blocks of shattered masonry in disorderly piles
    • Grayish-brown dust covering everything
    • Except for the brightly-colored plastic child's toy, perched neatly on the nearest bit of masonry - clean as a whistle, and fresh as it was when it came out of the box

Really tugs at your heartstrings, doesn't it?

I haven't found any reliable discussion of what I'll call The Strange Case of the Clean Toys. My speculation that those Pathetic Reminders of War's Destruction of Innocent Victims were about as real as the space aliens I'd see on tabloid covers is just that - speculation.

An important lesson to be drawn by this week's fake photos is that reasoned skepticism is a good idea. Even when it looks like there's photographic proof.

More at:

• "Altered Iran Missile Test Photo Makes Front Pages "
  Editor & Publisher (July 10, 2008)
• "In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many"
  The Lede/The New York Times (July 10, 2008)
• "Reuters drops Beirut photographer"
  BBC (August 8, 2008)

---

Update (July 10, 2008)

Looks like Iran's optimistic reporting is still going strong:

"U.S. source disputes Iran missile tests"
CNN (July 10, 2008)

According to an American source, today's 'full round of tests' was more a matter of getting yesterday's dud off the ground.

As is often the case, it's a matter of who you're going to believe: "a senior U.S. military source" or the people who did such a good job of retouching yesterday's publicity still?

Russian Official Declares First-Strike Nuke Policy: Why?

If you were running Russia, which would be a bigger concern: western aggression; or Ayatollahs with nuclear cruise missiles?

Today, Russia's military chief of staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, said that Russia will launch preemptive nuclear attacks to defend itself. ("We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons")

The policy isn't new: Russia has said it would use nukes first since 2000.

What is a bit unusual is that an official specifically mentioned nuclear weapons. Russian leaders usually aren't quite that open.

The Associated Press story, following journalistic custom, quotes experts to express opinions. Apparently, we're supposed to see Baluyevsky's remarks as a re-statement of Russian policy: a policy born out of concern over the threat of western aggression.

• Retired General Vladimir Dvorkin
  ("He was restating the doctrine in his own words")
• Alexander Golts
  ("Baluyevsky's statement means that, as before, we cannot count on our conventional forces to counter aggression ... as before, the main factor in containing aggression against Russia is nuclear weapons")
• Pavel Felgenhauer
  ("We threaten the West that in any kind of serious conflict, we'll go nuclear almost immediately")

This focus on "western aggression" is familiar to me: I was born in the fifties, well into the Cold War. It was hard to miss an ideological conflict that was a major part of world affairs for most of the 20th century.

This is 2008, though, almost a decade into the 21st century, and a little over sixteen years since the Cold War ended. (I'm marking the end of the Cold War as the dissolution of the Soviet Union: December 25, when Boris Yeltsin called the White House, or December 31, 1991, when the Kremlin's hammer and sickle came down for the last time.)

I suppose that Russia may believe that "western aggression" is a real threat. The Associated Press may see the global situation in Cold War terms, too.

However, I think that at least some Russian leaders may recognize that they've got a problem a little more immediate than invasion by capitalistic, imperialistic, warmonger Yankee aggressors.

The Russian government has been helping Iran with their "civilian" nuclear program. People over there must have a pretty good idea of how much, or how little, it would take for the Ayatollahs to start building nuclear bombs.

Although Russia doesn't share a border with Iran, there's nothing but Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea, or Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan between Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. If I were a Russian, and responsible for that nation's security, I'd be concerned that the Islamic leaders of Iran might decide that it was time for Russia to convert or die.

Since Iran has a cruise missile (the X-55 LACM) with a range of 3,000 kilometers, quite a bit of southern Russia could be hit by Iran. Once Iran has the 10,000 kilometer Shahab-6 in its inventory, Muscovites would have a more personal interest in Iranian nukes.

Call me biased, but I don't assume that America and the west are always the first thing that people think about.

... And It's the Fault of the Americans! Iran's Tried-and-True Response to Nuclear Weapons Findings

An American Intelligence report shows that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until 2003, and then stopped the work. Odds are pretty good that the Iranian leaders stopped weapons work because of sanctions on Iran.

The Iranian government protested. There aren't diplomatic ties between Iran and America, so the note was passed through the Swiss embassy in Tehran.

Here's a somewhat biased summary of that Iranian protest:

• Our nuclear program is very peaceful
• As is proved by American intelligence
  • Which showed that we stopped our atomic weapons program
• Which we never had
• And it's the fault of the Americans
  • Because they used "satellite and espionage activities" to find out about our nuclear weapons program
  • That we've said doesn't exist
  • And never did exist
• And so, the American military will not even think about attacking us ("We rule out the option of military strike against Iran after the release of this report," is what an Iranian official said)
• Bush is a liar

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s head, Mohamed ElBaradei, must be in on the American plot. He figures that the Americans got it right, because his agency found the same facts.

The American military has a very poor track record for taking orders from foreign officials. The latest directive from Tehran is no exception. "Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. military crisis planning on Iran has not changed after the report."

Seriously Now

I think Iran is going to stay in the news, off and on, for quite a few years. So is the question of Iran's nuclear program and military options. Understanding just what some terms mean is important: particularly in places where the general public has some say in what their government does.

Terms like "nuclear weapons," "nuclear program," and "enriched uranium" pop up quite a bit in connection with Iran.

"Enriched uranium" is uranium ore that's been purified. Nuclear power plants need uranium ore that's at most 5 percent uranium. Nuclear bombs need uranium that's 90 percent pure.

Since there's no point in having a big bomb, if there's no way to deliver it, let's look at what Iran has in stock, and what it can order, in the way of missiles.

For starters, there's the X-55 Long Range Cruise Missile, a Russian product, inappropriately sold to Iran by a third party. This robot airplane only has a range of 3,000 km (a little under 1,900 miles). Iran could hit places like Eastern Europe, Egypt, and India, but that's about it. Oh, yes: parts of Russia, too.

Shahab-5 or Shahab-6 missiles (Iranian versions of the North Korean Taepo Dong models), with ranges of 5,500 and 10,000 km, would give Iran a clear shot at all of Europe and China, most of Africa, and the most heavily populated parts of Russia.

You need three things to have a usable nuclear weapons system: enriched uranium that's at least 90 percent pure; a vehicle that will get go far enough to hit your target; and a bomb that will put the enriched uranium into the vehicle, and push it above critical mass at the right time.

Right now, it looks like this is where Iran stands:

• Long-range missiles
  In stock, or available
• Enriched Uranium
  Some on hand, more in production
• A working nuclear bomb to put the enriched uranium in the missile
  Work stopped in 2003, ready to re-start

I don't think it's a good idea to let Iran get all three parts of a nuclear weapons system. Neither, it seems, to quite a few European countries.

Of course, I'm biased, and so are the Europeans: but they've got a much bigger reason to be concerned.

Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?

Granted, the Soviet Union is a hard act to follow. Now that it's Russia, the temptation to make people think it's the good old days must be enormous.

Just the same, I think but Russia's President Putin went straight over the top today, even by the notoriously flexible standards of accuracy enjoyed by politicians.

At a news conference, capping a European Union-Russian summit in Portugal Putin said that the American plan to put an anti-missile system in Europe is like the Cuban missile crisis. ("Caribbean crisis" is the Russian name for the event.) "Analogous actions by the Soviet Union, when it deployed missiles in Cuba, prompted the 'Caribbean crisis,'" he said.

I'll give Putin credit: He doesn't expect people to believe that the international situation is as tense now as it was back in the sixties. On the other hand, he says it's because he's in charge now, and able to make American leaders understand how serious things are.

In a way, this wacky statement is a sort of relief. In this pre-election season, at least American politicians aren't the only ones spouting nonsense.

On the other hand, Putin's disinclination to have a missile defense system in Europe is troubling. This could be a simple political issue: the Czech Republic and Poland used to be part of the Soviet Union. Putting a radar base and 10 interceptor missiles in those now-independent countries must rankle.

The anti-missile system, which is supposed to keep missiles from Iran from reaching America, wouldn't be ready until 2011, at best.

An argument against this system is that Iran doesn't have missiles, with nuclear warheads, yet. Since there's no threat, there's no reason for setting up a defense, yet.

Fair enough.

In a way, I could see the wisdom of waiting until Iran lobs a few nuclear bombs into this country. There aren't any high-value targets in my part of America, and nothing upwind for a thousand miles or so. New York, Washington, D.C., and Miami could be reduced to radioactive dust, and I wouldn't be directly affected.

Even so, I would prefer that such an attack be stopped, even if Putin doesn't like it.