perfidy

Picked up from Matt Yglesias, this Post op-ed from two former Clinton officials recommending that we don't just shoot down the missile, but that we shoot down the launch site. Before we get into the meat of the story, I find it amusing that Matt had this qualifier for the raging warmongering suggested by mssrs. Carter and Perry:

And, of course, Carter and Perry are veterans of the Clinton administration so one shouldn't dismiss them out of hand as know-nothings.

I am much less partisan in my warmongering. I take it as a given that warmongerging is a viable solution, and work backwards from there.

But on to the op-ed. They suggest that waiting would be bad. First, even if we shoot it down successfully, the North Korean engineers will have already obtained much of the flight test data they need to make more of these. Second, and as we discussed in the previous post, the downside of a failed intercept is really, uh, down. A cruise missile strike on the launch facility would destroy the missile, and little else. It would guarantee that the missile launch doesn't happen - as our precision strike capability is not in the least an unknown quantity. And, it would send a message. A good one, I think.

The South Koreans would oppose any strike on the North, however limited in scope. Given their vulnerability, that is understandable. To do nothing would be imprudent, though, as we have been trying a carrot approach to the North, and that is only half a viable strategy. Hitting the missile after launch avoids the problem of striking the actual territory of a hostile nation, but at some risk to our future credibility of our deterrence. All in all, I think that hitting the launch site seems the most reasonable, in terms of probability of success, and lack of serious downside. Unless the North freaks out and invades. But that, I think, is unlikely no matter what the provocation. The Chinese won't allow it if for no other reason than that they aren't ready for a confrontation with the US.