AP source: US delays missile test as tensions rise

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

AP source: US delays missile test as tensions rise
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senior U.S. defense official says the Pentagon has delayed an intercontinental ballistic missile test for next week at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California amid mounting tensions with North Korea.

The official says Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delayed the long-planned Minuteman 3 test because of concerns the launch could be misinterpreted and exacerbate the current Korean crisis.

The official was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

North Korea's military has warned that it was authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons.


Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISSILE_TEST_DELAYED?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Good.

Time to dial it down.

[paleotn]

10. Agreed.....

...A little less testosterone and B-2 flights. The NK regime is well aware of our capabilities. They have been pointing straight at them for over 50 years, and for good reason. Much of the recent rhetoric is intended for internal consumption primarily, with Kim Jong Un attempting to solidify his position, IMHO. What worries me more than the recent NK blabbing (like that's anything new) are unintended consequences of less than well thought out actions on our part.

[TwilightGardener]

14. The danger isn't their rhetoric, it's the fact that NK makes small military strikes

against South Korea at random intervals. If they do it again, it will likely result in war with South Korea, as SK's political climate has shifted and they have vowed to strike back against such acts in the future. The US doesn't want an uncontrolled, unintended war situation that catches us by surprise--it almost happened in 2010. The flights were not testosterone, they were a warning and meant to give notice to KJU not to try anything (as he almost certainly would, to gain support and look tough), because it will start a war and the US will help defend SK.

[TwilightGardener]

2. They could have just delayed it, handled internally and quietly.

There's a reason why they choose to make this a news item.

[Judi Lynn]

4. I wondered about that, too. Hmmm. n/t

[Angleae]

18. Probably because such launches are pre-announced.

And if they did so, the media would constantly ask why it was delayed which would escalate into rampant speculation.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I doubt anyone outside of directly interested parties would have

wondered why, since it's unrelated to the current Korea news--just make a mention in defense-related media/DoD websites that the test has been delayed for "scheduling reasons" or whatever. I think they announced this to give Little Kim a chance to climb down from the ledge and claim a victory of sorts, and give him less reason to launch missiles of his own.

[bemildred]

3. Maybe this is the "out" mentioned here:

An accident, then war with North Korea? by Wes Clark

Third, strike a balance between demonstrating resolve in public and, simultaneously, working to reduce tensions. North Korea must always be given an "out" from the box of escalating threats it has constructed, but the out must not involve U.S.-South Korean concessions, apologies or any signs of hesitancy, weakness or lack of resolve. This requires artful balancing of military demonstrations, deployments, statements and behind-the-scenes dialogue with China and others in the region.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101660006

As in an indication that we are taking Kim's threats "seriously"?

[Judi Lynn]

5. Very interesting. Thanks for the info., link. n/t

[bemildred]

6. Just an idea, but it sort of fits. nt

[mbperrin]

7. The postage stamp country of North Korea just does not deserve boogeyman status.

Not enough food, not enough electricity, the size of a postage stamp.

I grew up in the good ole days when the second most powerful country in the world was seen as a threat - bomb shelters, duck and cover, and all that other crap. What happened to the USSR? Yes, they went broke and collapsed. Now they buy cheap Chinese crap, do Facebook, and listen to bad music, like all civilized people.

Terrorists were a try, but please, less than 3,000 casualties in 12 years, while 600,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers since them, and another 4 million dead from lung cancer? No wonder that didn't fly - you can even bring baseball bats and golf clubs on board planes now.

So now the folks that sell survival gear and DVD copies of Red Dawn and ammo and guns need something else.

North Korea? I ain't playing.

[cheapdate]

8. The United States has a mutual defense treaty with South Korea.

Nobody involved in US foreign policy decisions believes that North Korea poses any existential threat to the United States. But the possibility of an all-out war on the Korean peninsula, which would involve the full force of the US military, is a serious matter.

[mbperrin]

13. Nah, a few baseball bats oughta do it.

North Korea EATS at our and China's pleasure. They are incredibly poor.

Go to YouTube and find the Earth at Night video and pause it at North and South Korea. South Korea lit up like a Christmas tree, North is completely dark save two tiny dots of light.

The full force of military contractors and profits for the military-industrial complex is a definite possibility. These guys have been shopping for something since Iraq and Afghanistan are nearly done, and Syria nor any other Middle East country looks scary - we've gotten too used to it and even the old Islam jihad blah blah blah is wearing thin.

Great puppet show if China allows it. Danger to anyone really? Nope.

I wouldn't worry too much about the US standing by its treaties. Why start now?

[cheapdate]

17. No realistic military assessment of the consequences of war

on the Korean peninsula supports your assessment that there would be no "danger to anyone really". In fact, every serious assessment that I'm aware of reaches the opposite conclusion -- that casualties would be high on both sides, and especially among the South Korean civilian population.

I think it's unfortunate that you and many others believe that war between North and South Korea is a matter of no significance.

This report, for example, from The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is typical of rational analysis of the military situation.


"Conclusion :
The combination of North Korea’s long economic decline and enhanced US and South Korean military capabilities has diminshed the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Nonetheless, North Korea retains the ability to inflict heavy casualties and collateral damage, largely through the use of massed artillery. In effect, Pyongyang has more of a threat to devastate Seoul than to seize and hold it. North Korea’s conventional threat is also sufficient to make an allied pre-emptive invasion to overthrow the North Korean regime a highly unattractive option. In theory, US forces could carry out pre-emptive attacks to destroy known North Korean nuclear facilities and missile emplacements, but such attacks could provoke North Korean retaliation and trigger a general conflict..."

Read More :
http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/

[mbperrin]

19. Look, South Korea has been getting a free ride on defense while Uncle Sugar pays the bill.

If we could get someone else to pay our defense bills, we'd be better off, too.

Now, Korea seems long ago and support for our presence there has been faltering, so they need a refresher to keep hauling in the cash, both North and South. Neither of them wants that to change.

I'm 61, and I just don't scare like when I was 10.

And devastation? Well, in the last 10 years, 500,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers, and 3 million plus Americans have been killed by tobacco products. See? Those are real, and approaching 400,000 casualties a year, but nobody gives a shit.

So I should worry about foreign countries, especially one really wealthy from manufacturing that could pay for defense, but doesn't have to? No, thanks.

[cheapdate]

20. No one responsible for foreign policy decision making

is just going to walk away from a 60 year old treaty with South Korea. There are approximately 29,000 US soldiers stationed on or along the DMZ. If there is a war it will be our war as well.

No, you don't have to worry about it.

[mbperrin]

21. Might be YOUR war. I'll sit this one out as I have every one since Korea.

All of 'em moneymakers for the "right" people.

You didn't read one word of my response, did you?

Well, go ahead then and marginalize 400,000 Americans dead each year from drunk driving and tobacco and expect me to worry about some volunteers who know damn well what their job descriptions are and who have placed themselves in harm's way.

If any blows are actually exchanged, both countries have bitten the hand that feeds them.

Check out other "allies" through the years, and ask them about Uncle Sugar and his integrity - the Shah, Saddam, Noriega, Bin Laden, the Taliban, just to name a few recent.

[cheapdate]

22. By reason of nationality and citizenship

a war carried out by the government of the United States is my war and your war. You can tell yourself that it's not "your war". If you have so disassociated yourself from the state and government of which you are a citizen, then I don't know why you bother participating in an active political discussion forum like DU.

I read you last response. Deaths from automobile accidents and tobacco have almost nothing to do with the matter at hand. Your spurious claim that I've "marginalized 400,000 Americans" is the same kind of fallacious reasoning that would suggest that advocating to protect wildlife habitat is evidence that a person "values owls more than people". It's a kind of false choice and a fallacy not worth my engagement.

The Shah, Saddam, Noriega, et. al., have almost nothing in common with the situation in Korea.

[mbperrin]

26. Oh, so a loyalty oath is now required on DU?

I must not have gotten the memo.

You have a funny way of thinking that the deaths of 26,000 professional volunteer soldiers is more important than the deaths of 400,000 Americans annually from entirely preventable causes. Weird.

And no, I don't recite the Pledge, either.

So let me make my position on these wars clear. I oppose them, every one. I disown them.

I'll wish you well for your short stay here.

Now, I'll bid you adieu.

[LeftInTX]

9. Hmmm....Why the PR?

I used to live at Vandenberg when I was a kid. We never had previous knowledge of missile launches. If there was a schedule change it certainly wasn't public and certainly wasn't in the AP. Back in the 60s we had at least one per week.

I think it is PR that they are announcing this.

[Poll_Blind]

11. I believe prior to ALL ballistic missile tests, other nations are notified.

To prevent the appearance of a sneak attack/rogue unit/whatever. The information may not be "public", per se, but ballistic missile test schedules are shared (to the best of my knowledge) among the United States, Russia, China, etc. at least.

Nobody wants to accidentally start World War III while testing weapons to fight World War III.



PB

[LeftInTX]

12. That makes sense ;)

[BadtotheboneBob]

15. Yes, they are...

... to prevent the very thing you cite. This circumstance is more to help cool off the Korean tension. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was 'suggested' by the Chinese and Russians as a prudent measure. Altogether, a good call.

[Canuckistanian]

16. A wise move

Even though this test was probably scheduled long ago, it's important not to show eagerness to engage in war.

And don't give that little prick any reason to beat his war drum any more.

[PolitFreak]

23. K&R

Sorry for not seeing this earlier, JL.

[Socal31]

25. The last nuclear delivery device we would use on NK is a Minuteman from the 48.

Most likely we would use air lunched nuclear cruise-missiles, just to make sure China and Russia would not think a Trident or Minuteman first-strike was heading for their capitol.

That being said, good move here. We can test them later, just make sure Moscow and Beijing are made aware of the new date.