A few pieces of the puzzle for the 'realists', Sec Def Gates, and his duped moron accesorized tool, Gordon England

DIA NOW classifies 2006 North Korean test as ICBM

East-Asia-Intel.com, March 6, 2008

North Korea did not claim its 2006 firing of a long-range missile was a space launch vehicle, as it did following a 1998 launch, and the launch was assessed as a missile test, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said last week.

Whoopsi, sorry folks, but we quietly want to let you know that the lunatic asylum which hasn't been able to feed itself in a generation because it's maintaining the 5th largest or so armed forces in the world, run by a cognac loving recluse who has a movie theater in his house, where he can sip and dream of Reese Witherspoon thighs, really HAS a working ICBM because in case we get schlonged in this theater of operations, of if something unknown lands in Santa Monica , we want to be sure we can say we told you so.

DIA Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples was asked by senators whether the failed launch of a Taepodong-2 in July 2006 was a space launch or an ICBM.

"There's the inherent capability. If you can launch a satellite, it can be a ballistic missile. There are all kinds of reentry problems to it," Maples said.

The 1998 Taepodong launch was explained by Pyongyang as a space launch, but the 2006 launch, which failed, was not so characterized by North Korean state-run media. U.S. intelligence regards the test as demonstrating it had "the inherent capability to be a ballistic missile."

Maples was commenting on questions from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), a vehement opponent of U.S. missile defenses who apparently sought to seek information to discount the need for U.S. missile defenses.

The Pentagon activated its global missile defense system prior to the July 2006 test and was prepared to shoot down the Taepodong had it not failed.

But don't worry.....

DNI on North Koreans' plutonium: They have 'enough for 12' nukes

East-Asia-Intel.com, March 6, 2008

North Korea is believed to have produced up to 50 kilograms of plutonium, enough for between six and 12 nuclear bombs, the director of national intelligence said last week.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testifies in Washington, on Feb. 27. AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta

"The estimate is they're not very good at it; therefore, they would [need to] take more of it," DNI Mike McConnell said. "So the better guess is six, but it could be 12."

OK, they suck, but they did it, so they can't suck THAT much, twit.

Asked about North Korea's admission in 2002 that they had a covert uranium enrichment program, McConnell said: "We have high confidence that they had a highly enriched uranium program."

"I mean, there's no ambiguity about that, in our estimation, based on the evidence that we had at hand," he said.

McConnell said a North Korean statement in 2002 was intended for negotiating ground and was presented as a hypothetical. The comment was viewed by some as an admission while other analysts dismissed it as not necessarily an admission. "So that's the reason there was confusion around what he said," McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"One thing I've discovered about North Koreans is they have no idea of truth. It's not in their makeup. So when you're having a discussion, it's always how am I getting advantage, and so on," he said.

Jane's Defense Week this week says Secretary of Defense Gates warned congress that any fulfilling of the F-22 Raptor request of the Air Force up to the 300 or so they want, to replace the 751 F-15's falling apart in the sky, woul dbe at the expense of the required number of F-35 fighter which are the replacement for the F-16's of the 1970's the Air Force flies. Asked why that has to be, Gates replied that essentially he was guessing that a peer to peer combat (US vs Russia or China) would not occur, so therefore we won't need those F-22's for air superiority. THAT is the good news.

The bad news is that this administration has now established a position the democrats are to try to get to the left of.

Why don't we just stay with the 1970's aircraft, that way if we get in a fight, it will be 'fair'.

What kind of words pass thru the minds of these men that they convince themselves they really have a clue? I would say replacing 751 F-15's with 300+ F-22's is fiscally conservative enough. 183 is a joke. This admin is perceived as strong on defense? What is going on?