There is very big money to be made in Star Wars Anti-missle Systems. Meanwhile there that little problem inspecting all these containers at our ports.

I'm missing someone but who exectly, on this client list, are we worried about getting these missiles? Iran I guess is the obvious answer but don't they have delivery systems already

...the NorKs on this specific system. My gut wonders whether the Shahab III/Nodong doesn't quite have the throw weight/range that their inexperienced weaponeers would like it to have - and I wonder whether they might want to have the capability to crash quickly to a complete weapon with delivery mechanism, depending on how the politics work out. Either that, or they'd like to hit targets further afield than Tel Aviv. If the Shahab III is sufficient, why the apparent interest in this system? Certainly one could argue that it's for their space programme, and I could even buy that interpretation. All that said, every instinct that I have says the fewer ballistic missile systems in these hands, the better.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

try as I might, I can't find myself too worried about such a missile in the hands of Kim or Iran, any more than I could find myself too worrried about the demon that was Saddam a couple of years back. Now, I'm not saying its a good thing , but I find such a system a damn less worrying than, say, the US with tactical nukes. But its little more than a posture IMO

There is much blustering from Washington but this century has proven the US to be a far less reponsible, and more dangerous, global citizen than either of these nations

...about the possibility of deliverable nuclear weapons in anyone's hands - and that's what this missile system is ultimately about. The potential for new nuclear powers, especially those that are comparatively weak in conventional forces, should give anyone pause, quite apart from how they view the United States and the current administration. Countries with lots of military resources can afford to use strategic weapons for posturing, countries that have pilloried themselves at the hyper-expensive nuclear altar are much more likely to have only nuclear options when it comes to crunch time.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

I don't think the aquistion of a delivery system such as this is a good thing by a nation such as NK, or for that matter, any nation. But, if you keep on pushing their back to wall, making threatening guestures, including them in speeches as a member of the "axis of evil", stationing tactical nukes on their borders and moving the goalposts for satisfactory resolution of any dispute (I'm sure Kim remembers the USA dismissing out of hand the offer in January 2003 by Saddam to allow the inspectors full unfettered access anywhere in Iraq including all his palaces) then who can blame them for pushing ahead with such systems at full speed.

I know I would...and it gives them a viable option to retaliate when confronted with the overwelming conventional, and non-conventional forces of a proven unprovoked aggressor which is currently threatening them. What else can they do...

And I guess I'm a little more concerned that the USA will attack North Korea than vice versa. Lets face it, that is being discussed as as within the realms of possibility but no-one, out side the loons, considers that Kim will launch an attack on the US, or facilitate such via a third party.

...US tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991.

I find it difficult to argue that development of a ballistic missile deployed nuclear capability is a rational response to the hostility that North Korea is experiencing when the primary impetus of the hostility is the fact that North Korea is developing said capability. In the absence of North Korea continuing to develop that capability (and proliferate it to other unstable powers), no one outside the region really cares what they do - North Korea can continue to be the dark region visible from space north of Seoul and everyone will go on their merry way. Hell, if they hadn't been such diligent sabre rattlers, I rather suspect that the Yanks would have made huge drawdowns in their forces in South Korea - they've got to be thinking that they've got more pressing things to do with those guys right now, given the metal being ground in Iraq.

I agree that it's unlikely that Kim would deliberately attack the United States either directly or indirectly, but the guy has a very clear track record of proliferating technologies that we'd all be better off limiting to the maximum extent possible, and proliferating them to some quite volatile people. More to the point, the knock on effects of all this stuff are pretty huge well beyond the immediate region. How long after Iran develops a nuclear deterrant will it be before Saudi and Egypt re-activate their programs? Israel's already hopping up and down on top of a knife edge - developing an ABM capability and developing strike plans that have everyone in the broader region shitting bricks. Within East Asia, what about Japan - they've already quite deliberately become nuclear capable; will this be the tipping point resulting in manufacture and deployment?

Frankly I don't think this is something that gives them a viable deterrant (it would have to be much bigger and much more developed than a few nuclear tipped ICBMs to be credible as a deterrant) - this is something that gives them a good wedge issue between the United States and its regional security partners, pure and simple.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

right about US Tactical nukes (although would I be correct in assuming that any carrier group in the near region negates that drawdown anyway).

I do, however, dispute the idea that this idea of NK being a bogey man (and a bogey man the US seems to love to have) goes back no further than their attempts to develop nuclear weaponry, this is as much as anything a coldwar hangover, from both sides. The US has loved to hate Kim and his fathe since the late forties (and I'm in no way defending the northern regime although they were little worse than the southern bunch in the fifties). This is simply the next chapter in a book that was started by Acheson, Truman etc. You could argue reasonably easily I think that Kim is developing nuclear weapons as a response to the past decades, to having a clear back against the wall for decades. I clearly remember strident anti-Kim(s)lines being pursued long before the current standoff (and by current, I mean past 15 years or so).

I simply don't buy the argument that the USA would be happy to let NK fade away without this weaponry threat, any more than I buy the idea that Iran would be allowed to exist peacefully by the US without the current issue. The US would find another reason to get at both nations. Iran and NK being "evil" as such is built into the psyche of the nation now. If the post war era has shown anything, its shown that the US cannot allow any nation that it disagrees with to peacfully co-exist. Even my own, small, very friendly and benign, nation of New Zealand, was subject to multiple threats and trade assaults as a result of us opting oout of the US alliance..and still suffers such.

Certainly the South Koreans seem to be less than happy in recent years with the US's aggressive line with Kim, and you can't help feeling that they would be happier with less confronational approach.

And I don't think the point of the ICBM is to provide a credible defence as such, rather, its to provide something, to make the US pause and, I agree, to drive a wedge between the USA and its partners, something they are quite good at.

I have to ask why a nuclear Iran would drive Saudi and Egypt to nuclear weaponry when Israel, armed to the teeth with nukes, has not. The door for nukes is already wide open in the ME, courtesy of US double standards. Then again there is also the clear double standard indicated by the Bush admin's stance on India. Perhaps, if it plays the game, a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia might, discreetly be tolerated, as it seems Pakistan also is now too.