North Korea and Iran Working Together on Killer Missile

[Corlyss_D]

How the 'axis' seeks the killer missile
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 30, 2007

North Korea and Iran are cooperating in developing long-range missiles, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said yesterday.

Army Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said during a speech that North Korea test fired a long-range Taepodong missile in July, and Iran is working on a space launcher that would help develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could hit the U.S.

"Not only North Korea, but Iran has shown some significant developments in their [own] missile systems," Gen. O'Reilly said in a speech to the George C. Marshall Institute.

"They are working in concert with the North Koreans," he said. "They have made a claim that they are working towards developing a space launch capability, which also would give them an ICBM capability."

The Pentagon believes Iran has a "new intermediate-range ballistic missile or space launch vehicle [SLV] in development," a Missile Defense Agency briefing slide stated.

The Iranians are "likely to develop an ICBM/SLV [and] could have an ICBM capable of reaching the U.S. before 2015," according to the briefing chart.

One of the new missiles would be solid-fueled, making it capable of being launched rapidly, and have a range of 1,240 miles, enough to hit targets throughout Europe from Iran.

The speech marked the first time the Pentagon publicly disclosed the missile cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran.

The North Koreans test fired a Taepodong-2 on July 4 but the missile failed 40 seconds after launch, Gen. O'Reilly said. The two-stage version has a range of 6,200 miles and the three-stage version can travel 9,300 miles.

"But the indications are clear that they are continuing to strive to expand their ballistic missile capability," he said.

The U.S. missile defense system was made operational before the North Korean tests and the forces involved "performed very well," Gen. O'Reilly said. Another briefing chart used during the speech stated that if the Taepodong-2 had threatened the United States, "we are confident the ballistic missile defense system would have operated as designed."

Another briefing chart revealed for the first time that North Korea is developing a new intermediate-range missile with a range of about 2,000 miles that was described as "a qualitative improvement in performance" from earlier missile systems. North Korea's July tests -- seven missiles were fired -- included two 806-mile range Nodong missiles, he said.

Gen. O'Reilly said the U.S. missile defense system, which includes a network of long-, medium- and short-range interceptors and sensors, is designed to counter missiles from "rogue states" targeted at the U.S., its allies and forces overseas.

The system can defend against short-range Iranian missile attacks against Saudi Arabia and North Korean strikes on Japan, as well as an Iranian missile strike on London or North Korean missile attacks on the United States, an MDA briefing slide stated.

North Korea uses its missiles as "geopolitical leverage" over the United States and its allies and also to raise money by selling them abroad, Gen. O'Reilly said. Iran is building missiles for "both asymmetric threats and conventional threats" to U.S. and allied forces, he noted.

Gen. O'Reilly also stated that Hezbollah's short-range rockets and missiles, used in last year's fighting in Lebanon, were a threat to Israeli forces and that more than 4,500 were fired.
"They had small ball bearings, about 300, in their warhead, and they were very effective at shutting down a lot of the maneuvering capability of the Israeli army and also shutting down over 70 percent of the commerce in northern Israel during that period of time," he said. "And that was significant from both non-state actors and other countries that have committed to using rockets as terror weapons."

Asked whether the Pentagon can counter China's anti-satellite weapon, which was tested recently, Gen. O'Reilly said countering space weapons currently is not a mission for the Missile Defense Agency but could be done.

"We have tremendous kinematic capability with our missiles; we have the sensors and the battle management, so that work would be straightforward if we were ... given that guidance and mandate to do," he said.

The Pentagon also is developing a "multiple kill vehicle" that will greatly boost the power of current interceptors by adding more non-explosive warheads that can hit 10 or more enemy warheads from a single booster, he said.

The current missile interceptors deployed at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California can protect the United States from North Korean missiles and afford "partial protection" from Middle Eastern missiles. Upgraded defenses will provide full defense from both North Korean and Middle Eastern missiles, Gen. O'Reilly said.

By 2011, the Pentagon plans to have up to 44 interceptors deployed in the United States and the first 10 interceptors in Europe; a large radar in Europe; 18 Aegis missile defense ships; 48 ground-based THAAD interceptors; two new surveillance and tracking satellites; and a battle management and integrated global fire system for the Middle East and Southwest Asian missile threats.

Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
*************************************************************

I think this is the administration's first public admission of a fact that has been known to intel, and open sourced often enough, for at least 3 years.

[Barry]

Realclearpolitics.com
January 30, 2007
The Threat of a Nuclear Iran
By Newt Gingrich

(Note: The following are remarks delivered by Newt Gingrich at the 7th Herzliya Conference in Israel last week.)

Israel is facing the greatest danger for its survival since the 1967 victory. Israel maintained its dominance since 1967 even after the 1973 failure. In 1984 I wrote that WMD and terrorism would pose a threat for US national security. If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel's democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies.

Three nuclear weapons constitute a second Holocaust. Enemies are explicit in their desire to destroy us. We are sleepwalking through this as if diplomatic engagement will create a fiesta where we will all love one another. The terrorist threats are larger and more formidable than the political system in Israel or the US can cope with. We need a grand strategy similar to the Kenan telegram which formed US policy for the duration of the Cold War, and the 68 plan developed by Nitze in 1950.

We lack the language and goals to address the new environment along with the speed and intensity to counter the contemporary threats. If we have no strategy we will need to be intellectually honest to consider the next step once two cities have been destroyed. My grandchildren are in greater danger than I was throughout the Cold War. What stages are you in Israel going to take if tomorrow morning Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv would be destroyed? Similarly the US needs to consider what policies it would advance if in twenty four hours, Atlanta, Boston and San Francisco were destroyed. These threats will become even more imminent in two or five years time.

Science is spreading rapidly and thus enemies have greater capabilities to break out. China's satellites are indicative of this.

The US should have as an explicit goal, regime change in Iran, as its constitution makes them a revolutionary regime. In 2006 even the Department of State which seeks to deny the nature of reality, noted that Iran is a leading sponsor of terror. What I need is something that will be similar to Reagan's Replacement strategy in Iran. The current unrest in Iran will facilitate this.

The US, Israel and the West have not developed technologies to command urban spaces similar to the sophisticated technologies applied to air and sea-power. Urban technologies have not developed extensively since the 1940's, unlike that of air and sea. Similarly intelligence capabilities must be advanced and sufficiently integrated to contribute to bettering our urban capabilities.

It is important for Israel to discriminate between those who are willing to live with us and those that are not. Those who are not willing to live with one another will either die or live in prison. We should take our enemies at their word. Ahmadinajed is most explicit regarding his intentions as is Hamas when speaking to the New York Times. To those who are willing to live with us, we need to arouse, organize, defend and enrich them.

A Palestinian state with Hamas at its helm will seek to destroy Israel. In conflict one side wins and another loses. If I have to choose between surviving and being killed, I will choose to kill the enemy and to survive. Peace comes as a result for victory and not as a substitute for victory. The number one requirement for long-term peace is the growth of organizations for peace. This would include a Lebanese government willing to take over Southern Lebanon from Hezbollah, an Iraqi government that would be willing to take over factions. The US and Israel have both underestimated this challenge intellectually, as it will take a long period of time with tremendous investment of resources to achieve this desirable end.

The Department of Homeland Security should conduct two nuclear exercises and one biological exercise in major cities such as Philadelphia or Dallas to determine how many causalities would occur and whether hospitals could accommodate the casualties. Last year in Long Beach, California an exercise was conducted to measure the potential effects of the ramifications of a nuclear weapon being set off.

From 1947-1950, while there was an under funding of defense, there was a simultaneous coming to terms intellectually with the threat of Communism. To those that advance a withdraw of troops in Iraq; the onus is on them to explicate the consequences of defeat. In 1979 the US looked weak in the Middle East with the hostage crises and embassies coming under attack. I have been told that there are not enough marine detachments to protect embassies for when they potentially will be under the threat of attack. It is not the Bush doctrine that is at stake, but our very lives. Thus national security should be advanced rather than mere utopianism.

[living_stradivarius]

Both countries are apparently trying to develop ICBM capabilities but how do know they are working TOGETHER on it?

[burnitdown]

North Korea and Iran are cooperating in developing long-range missiles, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said yesterday.

Why that's silly. They'll simply buy one from the Russians

[Corlyss_D]

North Korea and Iran are cooperating in developing long-range missiles, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said yesterday.

Why that's silly. They'll simply buy one from the Russians

They aren't reliable.

[Corlyss_D]

Both countries are apparently trying to develop ICBM capabilities but how do know they are working TOGETHER on it?

The deal is the Iranians make the bombs and the North Koreans make the missiles and the Iranians pay for the development costs. That's been common knowledge in intelligence communities for at least 3 years. There are just too many coincidences not to be a pattern of cooperation. The two have been coordinating their "crises" at least that long. When one goes active, the other goes quiet, unless they want to make a special point as happened with the Lebanon war and the simultaneous North Korea launch last summer.

[living_stradivarius]

It's all speculation but makes sense. I'd put my money on it.

UN Security Council Resolution 1737 forbids member states to engage in ballistic missile related transactions to Iran. If Russia were to sell related parts the UN would be all over it. Yet another reason to seek non-member NK.

[burnitdown]

North Korea and Iran are cooperating in developing long-range missiles, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said yesterday.

Why that's silly. They'll simply buy one from the Russians

They aren't reliable.

The Russians, or their missiles?