
North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often - zachrose
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/insider/a-eureka-moment-for-two-times-reporters-north-koreas-missile-launches-were-failing-too-often.html
======
rl3
Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This
appears to be the actual story here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-
mi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-
program-sabotage.html)

-

In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better
choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided
destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its
blood money.

Not to mention North Korea continues to pose an actual WMD threat, they have
concentration camps in dire need of liberation, their general populace is
basically an ongoing humanitarian disaster, and they continue to pose an ever-
increasing threat to global security.

All the US had to do was say NK was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda and had provided
material support for 9/11 or something. War fever would've done the rest.

Granted, an estimated 100,000 civilian casualties from shelling in Seoul
during the opening hours of the war is a hard pill to swallow. Today's threat
however is the same deal plus nukes.

Then again, we had no qualms blowing away about 6500 Iraqi civilians with our
surgical "shock and awe" campaign.[0] Turns out when you drop 2,000lb GBU-31s
on civilian targets in the middle of a densely populated urban environment, it
tends to kill a whole lot of people. Who knew! The fireworks look pretty on
CNN though.[1][2]

Of course, enemy civilian lives tend to be far less valuable than allied
civilian lives.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Casualties)

[1]
[https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm)

[2]
[https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/10.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/10.htm)

~~~
bpizzi
> In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better
> choice than Iraq.

This sentence sounds very alien to me, am I alone? It suggests that USA had to
invade _something_ , just for the sake of invasion.

Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live
(France) for me to understand such a point of view. I'm trying hard to put an
adjective on that mentality, but all that comes is _alien_ , as in _inhuman_.

~~~
rl3
> _It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of
> invasion._

Correct, at least with the administration at the time. Iraq was invaded on the
flimsiest of pretenses, and was done in a fashion to maximize profit.

For example: Critical infrastructure was targeted under the pretense of rapid
dominance largely for the purpose of creating incredibly lucrative
reconstruction contracts for that administration's criminal friends. It's not
like we needed to take out power and water for months.

Not to mention lucrative private security contracts, privatized logistics for
the military, munitions and weapon systems. Attempts at privatizing Iraq's oil
that only served to further fuel the brutal insurgency. The list goes on.

> _Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live
> (France) for me to understand such a point of view. I 'm trying hard to put
> an adjective on that mentality, but all that comes is alien, as in inhuman._

It is inhuman, when the motivations are profit. On the other hand, there's
people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions
right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification
for war if I've ever heard one.

~~~
bpizzi
> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that
> endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those
> people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one.

You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands
casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's
a pretty bad argument for a _moral_ justification for an invasion, don't you
think?

~~~
rl3
> _You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands
> casualties..._

It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of
allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery
positions.

There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of
Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with
mandatory evacuation southward in the days prior to the invasion.

> _...not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war._

If you're referring to North Korea: I'm not advocating invasion presently,
merely lamenting that NK was not confronted prior to acquiring nuclear
weapons. Invasion today only works with absolute assurance you can neutralize
NK's nuclear capability, and that's extremely difficult if not impossible.

If you're referring to China and Russia: I'm pretty sure that to them, North
Korea is squarely not worth risking nuclear confrontation with the United
States over.

> _That 's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion,
> don't you think?_

No, I don't. There is an almost equal number of people languishing in hellish
prison camps—some their entire lives—with a far greater amount in the general
population living meager, miserable existences.

The very nature of it should transcend simple body count calculations in all
but the most extreme cases of disparity. The civilized world has a moral
obligation to wield its power in such a manner that doesn't allow such
suffering to exist, even if doing so incurs a heavy cost.

Can you imagine if World War II had a different outcome, with Nazi Germany
contained yet retaining its statehood? The term "Holocaust survivor" probably
wouldn't be present in the modern lexicon. Such fiction isn't too dissimilar
from the plight of North Korea's political prisoners today. By and large the
civilized world doesn't give much of a shit about them.

When airmen go down behind enemy lines, the forces available to rescue them
don't say "Well, we ran the numbers and it's not worth the potential cost of a
rescue mission. So, we're just going to forget they exist instead." _Esprit de
corps_ ensures a moral obligation to do the right thing regardless of the
risk.

I'm simply advocating for the same ideal on a basic humanitarian level.

~~~
bpizzi
I get your points, some makes sense.

However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by
SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK,
then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends.

If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the _rest of the world_ is to
apply sufficient pressure on them.

USA is not the _de facto_ leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it
is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the
military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others.
It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis.

If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for
USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and
uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek
unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources).

That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen
right now...).

USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply
repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and
more humanitarian crisis will emerge.

------
NotSammyHagar
So Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we
could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to
us. This was the whole reason the US & Russia tried to restrict building anti-
missile defense systems in treaties - because it increased the chance someone
might think a first strike could work. If true, this is bad.

~~~
jeffdavis
The US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink
and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill
mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other.

No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous.

China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they
would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK.

Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert on this subject and my opinion is
worth what you paid for it.

~~~
ekianjo
China is the main supporter of the DPRK regime. It acts as a buffer against
the US sphere of influence in the region.

~~~
yladiz
One possibility of what would happen if there were a war/conflict would be
China would take over NK and create a buffer Chinese state, possibly another
country in the Two System, One Country philosophy. China is becoming
increasingly intolerant of DPRK's actions, as evident by their stopping
importing of coal due to the killing of Kim Jong-nam (which will hurt DPRK's
economy as it is a large part of their exports). My guess is that the buffer
country would be a compromise, since SK doesn't want China directly at their
door and vice versa, but SK wouldn't be able to really support NK's terrible
economic situation as their economy is too small, and the US wouldn't want
China's influence in the region to too much grow. I could see another part of
that compromise would be to allow NK citizens to go to SK to be with family,
be reeducated, etc, as well.

------
Merad
The article that this discusses appears to be
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-
mi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-
program-sabotage.html)

------
Firebrand
If we look past the North Korean missile program, has the U.S. opened
Pandora's box by using malware to affect another country's missile launch?

We used to talk about Stuxnet infecting Iran's underground nuclear computer
systems which destabilized their centrifuges, but now we're talking about
malware affecting the "left of launch" of a missile. If this is the future of
stopping a potential nuclear attack from another country then is everything
that used to be stable about the nuclear order now in disarray due to the
"cyber age"? During the Cold War, The U.S. and the USSR knew where each
other's missile were located and generally shied away from operations within
the other's command and control systems for the most part.

Are we not inviting other major powers to play around in our nuclear systems?
It's one thing to try and stop the North Koreans from launching a missile at
California, but if the Chinese, the Russians, and the U.S. are inside each
other's command and control centers, does this not undermine the mutually
assured destruction doctrine? It could help make a country be so sure of its
capabilities that it would be willing take a bet and never suffer any
proportional retaliation.

~~~
ra
> Are we not inviting other major powers to play around in our nuclear
> systems?

Not really. We're just acknowledging the fact that they can and will.

I don't believe the US has the most advanced "cyberwarfare" military apparatus
at this time... but that's another topic.

~~~
sigmar
Who do you believe to have a more advanced cyberwarfare military apparatus?

~~~
ptaipale
Probably the one who manufactures most of the computing and telecom equipment
in the world.

------
Animats
This might make sense if North Korea hasn't mastered onboard inertial guidance
yet. Early US ICBMs, the Atlas, and (probably) the Titan, were radio guided
from the ground. The Minuteman and Polaris were and are completely self-
contained after launch. That took a lot of development, much of it done at
MIT's Draper Labs.

Today, you can buy fiber optic gyros on Alibaba. The accuracy might not be
good enough for hitting a silo, but it should easily keep a rocket roughly on
course. It's surprising that N. Korea doesn't have reliable full onboard
guidance by now.

~~~
ghughes
NYT's original scoop hints that the missiles or the systems controlling them
were compromised by malware similar to Stuxnet, which worked by tampering with
parameters used to control industrial hardware. That kind of attack could work
regardless of the accuracy of NK's guidance systems.

------
chvid
Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun
to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade
not be the more constructive path?

North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of
growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without
changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would
clearly benifit from that and have already seen the rise of Japan, South Korea
and China without military conflict.

I know the explanation is that they are "crazy" and "irrational". But those
are traits of individual persons; I find it hard to believe that can apply to
a whole country.

~~~
vtange
You make it sound like we're the source of antagonism to the North. We're
still technically at war and last I checked we're not the ones firing missiles
and gloating about "setting Seoul or Los Angeles in flames.

The thing about economically aiding dictatorships is that there's no guarantee
you're actually helping the non-'crazy' innocent folks - the dictator is in
control so you might just be enriching him and lengthening the people's
suffering.

~~~
jacquesm
That's nonsense, just as much nonsense as saying that economic sanctions
against a dictatorship hurt that dictator more than it hurts the people there.

Of course it doesn't.

The guarantee is that the dictator will not eat one truffle less and that the
people _will_ suffer more.

The best way to attack a dictatorship is to fund a middle class with something
to lose.

------
PhilWright
Is it wise for reporters that discover a covert program to disrupt North
Korean missile launches to disclose the information? Seems like they want the
credit for breaking a significant story more than they care about the delicate
and dangerous situation with a rogue country that has nuclear weapons. I
suggest they STFU.

~~~
dwringer
Yeah, North Korea was just waiting for the NYT reporters to give them up-to-
date intel on why their launches were failing. That's really the only
reporting Kim Jong Un trusts, so I hear.

~~~
wahern
On a less sarcastic note, the fact that Western governments have such a
difficult time gathering credible intelligence in North Korea is evidence that
the North Koreans have a robust intelligence apparatus.

What the whole Abdul Khan episode brought to light some years back was how
Western agencies underestimated the technological and political skill and
motivation of many so-called "third world" countries. Arguably that blind spot
was caused by the deep-seated racism and cultural elitism of Western
countries. There were plenty of opportunities to discover the illicit trade;
we just weren't convinced they were capable of it, despite all the evidence to
the contrary. Our leaders never took it seriously because their expectations
were that these countries were still too backwards.

Yet another example of why we really need to face prejudice head on. We simply
can't accurately assess the state of things if we're blinded by so many poor
assumptions, particularly the ones girded by racist attitudes.

If American culture continues casting Asians as uncreative copycats; Muslims
as radical fundamentalists; Africans as irredeemably corrupt; and South
Americans as hopelessly socialist; then we're in for decades of more wild and
very much unwelcome surprise.

~~~
mulmen
That's a lot of assumptions. You could say that the lack of another 9/11 type
attack in recent history and the high failure rate of these missiles shows
that the US Intelligence community has already overcome this prejudice.

~~~
wahern
Also, I think it was only in the past few years that everybody finally
accepted that North Korea has the bomb. As late as, what, 2013, we were still
half-way convinced they were blowing up boxes of high-explosives to fool us.
Even in 2016 some outlets were still hedging.

Now, maybe the intelligence community came around much earlier. But certainly
Congress was still having trouble coming to terms with the reality. Why?
Because it was just so difficult to believe (and still difficult to believe)
that such a repressive society could achieve such a feat.

It is, admittedly, difficult to believe for me. But I understand part of that
difficulty is because Westerner's believe that such feats aren't possible
without a culture of individualism that unleashes individual initiative. Maybe
such a culture is superior. But it clearly isn't necessary. And that should
make us question much about what we think other countries are capable of, and
when they'll be capable of it.

~~~
nl
_As late as, what, 2013, we were still half-way convinced they were blowing up
boxes of high-explosives to fool us_

I think that's an exaggeration. I'd note this 2013 NYTimes article[1], which
notes that all US intelligence agencies agreed that North Korea tested a bomb
in 2006, but were unable to come to a consensus view as to if they were
capable of miniaturizing it enough to put on a missile:

 _an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency that it has “moderate
confidence” that North Korea has the ability to shrink a nuclear weapon and
fit it into a missile warhead surfaced at a Congressional hearing. That
conclusion was disputed by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national
intelligence, who issued a statement later in the day saying that it did not
reflect “the consensus” of the nation’s intelligence community._

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/world/asia/contrasting-
vie...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/world/asia/contrasting-views-on-
north-korea-underscore-sensitivities-and-lack-of-evidence.html?_r=0)

------
jccalhoun
Every year (I think they were cancelled once or twice) the US and South Korea
hold military exercises. Around that same time North Korea does something to
flex their muscles.

In writing the comment I just looked up when the last US-South Korean military
exercise. I was surprised to learn it started March 1st.
[http://www.dw.com/en/us-south-korea-launch-large-scale-
milit...](http://www.dw.com/en/us-south-korea-launch-large-scale-military-
exercises/a-37757202)

------
aaronbrethorst
This was covered on today's edition of the NYT podcast, The Daily, too. I
highly recommend listening to it. It's my one 'must-listen' podcast. It's
hosted by the guy who did the Times election podcast, _The Runup_ , but offers
far better production value. Give it a whirl:
[https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily](https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-
daily)

------
mathiasben
speculation as to why the rocket test have been failing? 88% failure rate is
pretty dramatic.

~~~
jedimastert
Apparently, the prevailing theory is a program to cyber-sabotage the launch
systems[0].

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-
mi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-
program-sabotage.html)

~~~
mc32
I wonder if they could go the next step and make it fall back on Mr Kim's
compound --then he'd suspect one of two things, his own people were trying to
get him or-- as adversary had critically compromised his systems. Both
scenarios would be equally devastating for his goals.

Scuttling them at sea is nice and all --having them go up and straight back
down would present the regime with quite a problem.

~~~
tim333
That would be an interesting solution to the North Korean problem if the
missile was armed.

------
nonbel
I hope someone has said this: "Perhaps it is a biased sample? Defective
missiles are being sent to the "known" sites to make you underestimate their
capabilities."

~~~
Athas
This makes no sense if you want the missiles to work as a deterrent. I'm quite
sure North Korea isn't actually planning on going to war (and winning it);
they just want to give the impression that going to war would be too costly
for their enemies. Giving the impression that their missiles don't work is
counter-productive in this context.

~~~
ry_ry
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you _keep_ it a
_secret_! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?"

------
karbak
Someone forgot to task Detachment 2702.

~~~
tickbw
Best Comment ever.

------
billpg
Is there an ideal number of times for North Korea's missiles to work?

~~~
coldcode
I would think zero is a number we could live with.

