In his recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CIA Director George Tenet was asked, "What is the likelihood that [the North Koreans] currently have a missile capable of hitting the West Coast of the United States?" He turned to the officials sitting with him, conferred with them briefly and replied, "I think the declassified answer is, yes, they can do that." In fact, he allowed that the North Koreans probably have one or two "plutonium-based devices" at their disposal.

Of course, it comes as a surprise to no one that North Korea is pursuing a nuclear program. The special concern raised by Mr. Tenet's admission is the possibility that the rogue state has the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile with a range long enough to hit North American soil. This means that -- looking beyond the issue of how deterrence, sanctions and diplomatic pressure may best be brought to bear against North Korea -- the United States must also contend with the possibility of an ICBM threat in any future confrontation.

In 2002, the United States pulled the plug on its 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. The reason the Bush administration gave was that the world's strategic configuration had changed so fundamentally in the three intervening decades that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction -- upon which the ABM Treaty was premised -- was no longer applicable. Indeed, since the end of the Cold War and especially following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it has become obvious that the primary threat from weapons of mass destruction no longer lies with Russia or China, but rather with terrorist groups and rogue states. Unlike the Soviets and Chinese, unpredictable leaders such as North Korean President Kim Jong-il might attack the United States even if he knew his country would be destroyed in return.

It is based on this new reality that the Bush administration has steadily been pursuing a missile defence system as part of its comprehensive strategic defence plan. In December, President Bush announced that the United States would begin operating an anti-missile umbrella in 2004 and 2005.

When the debate about missile defence dominated the headlines during the early, pre-9/11 days of the Bush administration, doves complained that the construction of an anti-missile umbrella was unnecessary -- and that withdrawing from the 1972 ABM treaty would catastrophically upset relations with Russia and China. Recent events have put the lie to both these claims: North Korea's aggressive gestures demonstrate that the possibility of a rogue state attacking the West with a WMD-tipped missile, though still highly remote, is hardly unimaginable. (A recent propaganda campaign in the hermit kingdom features posters that depict North Korean forces destroying the White House.) As for Russia and China, they barely murmured when the United States announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. They too realize that the strategic landscape has changed.

Clearly, Mr. Bush made the right decision when he decided to go ahead with his planned missile shield. Like everyone, we hope the United States never has to use it. But if the unthinkable happens, and a rogue despot such as Mr. Kim does commit his nation to an act of collective suicide, Mr. Bush's shield could save millions of innocent American lives.

And here's the rose-colored view of delaying missile defense as seen by the Cato Institute:

Missile Defense: Delay Is Not Abandonment

September 6, 2000

Missile Defense: Delay Is Not Abandonment

by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Bill Clinton, a president usually known for "political triangulation," should be praised for postponing construction of a national missile defense (NMD) system and leaving to his successor the decision on whether to deploy the system. The politically expedient decision would have been to authorize groundbreaking for the radar site on a remote Aleutian island in order to insulate Vice President Gore from Republican charges that Democrats are soft on defense.

Although deploying a limited land-based NMD is a laudable goal, now is not the time to make a decision to do so. In responding to Republican pressure to implement such defenses quickly, the Pentagon adopted a rushed schedule to develop and field a system by 2005--the year the independent Rumsfeld Commission has projected that long-range missiles from North Korea could become a threat to the United States. But the 2005 date is artificial.

First, the Rumsfeld Commission report said that North Korean missiles "could" become a threat by 2005, not that they would "likely" become a threat by then. In addition, since the Rumsfeld report, tensions on the Korean peninsula have eased and the North Koreans have suspended tests of their long-range missiles. If nothing else, that suspension has slowed the North Korean missile program and given the United States time to develop NMD at a more prudent pace.

Extra time is valuable because rushing development only to discover that the fielded anti-missile system does not work will lengthen the time that the United States would be without defenses against North Korean missiles. At best, a failed system would require costly fixes; at worst, the Pentagon might need to start all over again. The Welch Commission, headed by Ret. Air Force Chief of Staff Larry Welch, warned the administration against such a "rush to failure."

Any weapon system--but especially a system as complex and technologically daunting as NMD--should be thoroughly tested under realistic conditions before a deployment decision is made. Currently, only three of 19 scheduled intercept tests have been completed, and the first had an ambiguous result and the other two were failures. Furthermore, those tests were undertaken with a surrogate booster rocket; the real booster is a year behind schedule. With such a minimal and unimpressive test record, even starting construction on a radar site is premature until the Pentagon has a better idea of whether the system will work. If anything, more tests should be added to verify that the system will succeed in the actual environment in which it will operate--that is, against realistic decoys and countermeasures.

Clinton’s construction delay will also give the United States more time to renegotiate the Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Russians. Although the treaty is technically void--the original signatory, the Soviet Union, no longer exists--a unilateral American decision to violate the pact's ban on national defenses could cause Russia to abrogate other arms control agreements, to cease cooperation with the United States on securing the Russian nuclear stockpile against proliferation to "rogue" states and to sell such states sophisticated decoys and countermeasures that could defeat U.S. missile defenses. Because Russia cannot afford its bloated, deteriorating nuclear arsenal and fears U.S. development of an NMD unconstrained by the ABM Treaty, it has an incentive to trade substantial reductions in offensive weapons for a renegotiation of the pact to allow a limited U.S. missile defense.

Even if a limited NMD system is not deployed until 2010 (a more likely date), U.S. security will not be in dire straits. North Korea--or any other rogue state with a few long-range missiles armed with nuclear warheads--would probably be reluctant to launch an attack on the United States even if no American missile defense were deployed. U.S. satellites could pinpoint the origin of the missile launch, and the most powerful nuclear force in the world could obliterate the launching state. In fact, the best reason to deploy a limited missile defense is to guard against an accidental launch from such states, which are likely to have inadequate nuclear safeguards. Clinton’s action to delay a deployment decision will have few drawbacks but will likely enhance the chances of fielding an effective missile defense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.