from ClosingVelocity h/t LGF
Democrats Call For Tomahawk Strike Against North Korean Launchpad
President Clinton's former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter have called on the President to take pre-emptive action against North Korea's ballistic missile while it's still on the launchpad (MUST READ op-ed):
If Necessary, Strike and Destroy
North Korea Cannot Be Allowed to Test This Missile
North Korean technicians are reportedly in the final stages of fueling a long-range ballistic missile that some experts estimate can deliver a deadly payload to the United States. The last time North Korea tested such a missile, in 1998, it sent a shock wave around the world, but especially to the United States and Japan, both of which North Korea regards as archenemies. They recognized immediately that a missile of this type makes no sense as a weapon unless it is intended for delivery of a nuclear warhead.
A year later North Korea agreed to a moratorium on further launches, which it upheld -- until now. But there is a critical difference between now and 1998. Today North Korea openly boasts of its nuclear deterrent, has obtained six to eight bombs' worth of plutonium since 2003 and is plunging ahead to make more in its Yongbyon reactor. The six-party talks aimed at containing North Korea's weapons of mass destruction have collapsed.
Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.
After describing the type of airstrike or cruise missile attack we should employ, the two former Defense officials conclude --- STRIKE NOW:
This is a hard measure for [the President] to take. It undoubtedly carries risk. But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater. Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature. A successful Taepodong launch, unopposed by the United States, its intended victim, would only embolden North Korea even further. The result would be more nuclear warheads atop more and more missiles.
Forgive me -- I did not include the link to their Washington Post op-ed at the top like I usually do. Here it is.
What's that? This is not from today's WashPost? Hrm. Please re-read the whole thing and tell me: what exactly has changed? Oh, only One thing.
(h/t: National Review)
PS: As you read this, Ashton Carter is undergoing confirmation for yet another stint at the Pentagon. I think Obama's nominee should be asked about this extremely hawkish op-ed from 2006.