North Korean rocket launch

It looks like North Korea successfully launched a satellite into orbit. The story is still developing, but it appears the object is tracking on a sustainable orbit so it looks like they made it.

How did they get there that fast?
What if anything do we do about it?
What are the implications to foreign policy?

See the first question that came to my mind was: What do they want this time?

I'm just saying...

So fast? Sputnik was 55 years ago.
Nothing. It is a rocket in space.
Nothing. Same as it ever was.

Well given that there are severe restrictions from the UN on their launching anything, that (if I remember correctly) were tied to international aid efforts... wouldn't this automatically reduce or stop that aid?

Agent 86 wrote:

See the first question that came to my mind was: What do they want this time?

And that is a very good question Agent. As a general rule, this saber-rattling from North Korea comes at a time when they need more food or medicine or something. Someone should probably explain how the money the keep pooring into construction and (let's face it, probably) black market purchasing of information/supplies for these missles could certainly be used to get those same supplies instead.

goman wrote:

So fast? Sputnik was 55 years ago.
Nothing. It is a rocket in space.
Nothing. Same as it ever was.

Believe it or not, getting an object into a sustainable orbit is not as easy as it sounds. Lots of developed countries (including South Korea) have tried and failed.

Demosthenes wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:

See the first question that came to my mind was: What do they want this time?

And that is a very good question Agent. As a general rule, this saber-rattling from North Korea comes at a time when they need more food or medicine or something. Someone should probably explain how the money the keep pooring into construction and (let's face it, probably) black market purchasing of information/supplies for these missles could certainly be used to get those same supplies instead.

I think in many ways, this is sort of thinking misses the internal narrative and replaces it with one that is only obvious from the outside (and without the benefit of historical and cultural context). Given that we do have an overwhelmingly powerful military presence outside their front door, regularly practice joint military exercises that demonstrate that capability, and maintain our own aggressive military posture, the most logical reaction would be to demonstrate both the ability and willingness to retaliate to aggressive action asymmetrically. Seeing as the only deterrent one can logically call sufficient would nuclear, a nuclear capability with a demonstrably reliable delivery system appears necessary for national security.

All of that is not to say I approve of the DPRK or the way that they govern. It is only to say that given the historical and cultural context, this is simply historically inevitable -- especially given the context of the Iraq War.

At this point, I see three possible policy directions.

1) Tighten the grip in hopes that such a policy will eventually result in regime collapse. That seems to be the policy we have been pursuing for the last 60 years and the regime has proven astoundingly durable. During this timeframe, they have successfully transferred power twice and predictions of instability have proven overly optimistic.

2) Begin a Pacific War. This is a policy greatly favored by neoconservatives and American Exceptionalists. The drawbacks to this particular line of thinking are pretty obvious -- beginning with China.

3) Let in a little sunshine. This was the policy favored by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung before scandal destroyed his administration and follows the general principle that de-escalation and a toning down of heated rhetoric is likely to result in a more manageable relationship. Initial results were very promising, but the policy didn't outlive his presidency once hardliners retook the Blue House. It also didn't help that we (the US) were never really on board with it.

It seems the easiest thing is to continue the ratcheting up of sanctions and military escalation, but basic geopolitical theory tells us that the inevitable result will be their accelerating their development of a logical means of deterrence.

I would love to see option 3 play out but based off the tone of all the news I'm reading option 1 seems more likely. As for option 2, a terrible, horrible idea.

Agent 86 wrote:

I would love to see option 3 play out but based off the tone of all the news I'm reading option 1 seems more likely. As for option 2, a terrible, horrible idea.

I would say Japan's influence in the talks makes for Option 3 to be pretty difficult, if not impossible.

Demosthenes wrote:
Agent 86 wrote:

I would love to see option 3 play out but based off the tone of all the news I'm reading option 1 seems more likely. As for option 2, a terrible, horrible idea.

I would say Japan's influence in the talks makes for Option 3 to be pretty difficult, if not impossible.

Pretty much.

Now you see why Koreans all feel like they are living in a Greek tragedy or 19th Century Italian opera. And if you ever watch any of the tv dramas or movies coming out of South Korea, you really get that Shakespearean notion of "like flies to wanton boys we are to the gods. They kill us for their sport.".

Paleo - But this is all North Korea does.

South Korea on the other hand does a lot lot more.

goman wrote:

Paleo - But this is all North Korea does.

South Korea on the other hand does a lot lot more.

I think you're missing the point.

Even with the benefit of an advanced economy, an open academic society, shared expertise with even more advanced countries, and an effectively unlimited budget, the South Koreans (and several other countries) have managed to screw it up. At the same time, North Korea, a society where EVERY conversation is a potentially life-ending political conversation, a roll of duct tape is on the import restriction list, and failure (even a "useful" failure that gets one significantly closer to an eventual solution) is a potential death sentence manages a successful launch into sustained orbit after only four attempts. Whether you think so or not, this is tremendously significant.

I see this as Lil' Kim continuing his Dad's tradition. It's getting cold. Act up a little and you get attention, attention gets you offers to come to negotiations in exchange for foreign aid, foreign aid lets you feed your people (and yourself) for another year, and when spring comes you can dig up some minor slight to get pissy about and bail until next winter.

As for whether the satellite is in sustainable orbit, do we know that it actually is?

LobsterMobster wrote:

I see this as Lil' Kim continuing his Dad's tradition. It's getting cold. Act up a little and you get attention, attention gets you offers to come to negotiations in exchange for foreign aid, foreign aid lets you feed your people (and yourself) for another year, and when spring comes you can dig up some minor slight to get pissy about and bail until next winter.

As for whether the satellite is in sustainable orbit, do we know that it actually is?

Again, I think this misses the point.

The entire reason we developed and advanced our own nuclear program to the extent that we did was that we were firm in the belief that we could neither win nor afford the cost necessary to win a conventional war with a Soviet adversary. As a result, nuclear weapons were necessary to affect a political deterrent where a military one was not feasible.

When you examine this through the lens of a country facing our own military capability, the urgency of finding a similar political deterrent must be overwhelming.

This isn't about food programs or imagined slights. This is purely about the brutal logic of power politics. And in that context, it not only makes sense. Nothing else does.

manages a successful launch into sustained orbit after only four attempts.

While reports continue of famine level issues of food and medicine, and there were reports (though never fully evidenced or substantiated) of people resorting to cannibalism to avoid starvation. Given all of this, it really does make the government's control of and support from the people incredible. The great leaders are still viewed as gods, and are indoctrinated as such from a very early age, in spite of evidence of outright lies and rewritings being circulated for years. The problem being, none of this evidence ever gets to them.

Their technical achievement is certainly astounding and for almost any other use, would be greatly applauded. I get that they want to feel more secure, it's just unfortunate that they continue to go about this with buying and building more and more weapons than being able to talk with their neighbors to establish a more peaceful/less tense security instead.

Well I think what happened is what you get from priorities given. It is a logical extension. Meaning I am not surprised by this development.

I am saying South Korea has hundreds of priorities while North Korea has one.

When I think of South Korea I don't think of rockets. I think of Samsung and LG and Hyundai and Kia and Seoul Oympics and the militarized zone.

Demosthenes wrote:

Someone should probably explain how the money the keep pooring into construction...

This is a darkly great misspelling/Freudian slip, given the context.

Paleocon wrote:
goman wrote:

Paleo - But this is all North Korea does.

South Korea on the other hand does a lot lot more.

I think you're missing the point.

Even with the benefit of an advanced economy, an open academic society, shared expertise with even more advanced countries, and an effectively unlimited budget, the South Koreans (and several other countries) have managed to screw it up. At the same time, North Korea, a society where EVERY conversation is a potentially life-ending political conversation, a roll of duct tape is on the import restriction list, and failure (even a "useful" failure that gets one significantly closer to an eventual solution) is a potential death sentence manages a successful launch into sustained orbit after only four attempts. Whether you think so or not, this is tremendously significant.

I agree. I don't see how this is possible without hand holding from someone with the capability *cough* China *cough* and it troubles me greatly. In an ideal world no one of significant stature and capability would have to saber rattle the world scene, but over the last few years it seem Russia (read a Putin) and China seem to be doing this more and more.

Side note:
Unfortunately as far as I can tell despite the horrible conditions the North Koreans seem to think their dictator is something more than human and has their best interests as his goals. Both are obivously very incorrect. This means that no matter what happens reintegration with the real world will be a slow and painful process once it starts.

Demosthenes wrote:
manages a successful launch into sustained orbit after only four attempts.

While reports continue of famine level issues of food and medicine, and there were reports (though never fully evidenced or substantiated) of people resorting to cannibalism to avoid starvation. Given all of this, it really does make the government's control of and support from the people incredible. The great leaders are still viewed as gods, and are indoctrinated as such from a very early age, in spite of evidence of outright lies and rewritings being circulated for years. The problem being, none of this evidence ever gets to them.

Their technical achievement is certainly astounding and for almost any other use, would be greatly applauded. I get that they want to feel more secure, it's just unfortunate that they continue to go about this with buying and building more and more weapons than being able to talk with their neighbors to establish a more peaceful/less tense security instead. :(

Though I share the desire to see an overall de-escalation of the region, I also have to point out that historical context matters. As I have pointed out before, our own willingness to make a divided Korea the battleground for Cold War ambitions pretty much established the context for our current relations. And in that context, it is simply irrational for a besieged actor like North Korea to be the first to de-escalate -- even if the alternative means mass starvation.

Think about the popularity of Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart here in the US (and btw, it is one of the most popular foreign movies in the Arab Middle East) and you can see, at least to some extent, how universal the drive not to be dominated by an outside force is. The irony that the movie Red Dawn (remake) depicts a North Korean invasion of the US when the converse is a very real and rational fear would be comical if it wasn't already so tragic.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Someone should probably explain how the money the keep pooring into construction...

This is a darkly great misspelling/Freudian slip, given the context.

Well, I would say it was unintentional but that doesn't really help matters, does it? I'd say accidental because I'm used to Firefox spell check and my work IE doesn't have it.

Paleocon wrote:

Though I share the desire to see an overall de-escalation of the region, I also have to point out that historical context matters. As I have pointed out before, our own willingness to make a divided Korea the battleground for Cold War ambitions pretty much established the context for our current relations. And in that context, it is simply irrational for a besieged actor like North Korea to be the first to de-escalate -- even if the alternative means mass starvation.

Think about the popularity of Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart here in the US (and btw, it is one of the most popular foreign movies in the Arab Middle East) and you can see, at least to some extent, how universal the drive not to be dominated by an outside force is. The irony that the movie Red Dawn (remake) depicts a North Korean invasion of the US when the converse is a very real and rational fear would be comical if it wasn't already so tragic.

Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered. Either by us *or* China.

As for the universality not to be dominated by an outside force, that's a relatively recent phenomenon often provoked by attempts at military unification under a non-ethnic empire.

I wonder if those Arab audiences realize the irony of a film where the leaders of a people supposedly being 'conquered' resist ethnic unification because, what's that line from Robert the Bruce's father? "We're as rich in English lands and titles as in Scottish?" I wonder if they realize the parallels to their own leaders.

It's just always jarring to see such a western concept as Nationalism be embraced so vigorously by non-Westerners, sometimes in reaction to Western attempts at domination.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Though I share the desire to see an overall de-escalation of the region, I also have to point out that historical context matters. As I have pointed out before, our own willingness to make a divided Korea the battleground for Cold War ambitions pretty much established the context for our current relations. And in that context, it is simply irrational for a besieged actor like North Korea to be the first to de-escalate -- even if the alternative means mass starvation.

Think about the popularity of Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart here in the US (and btw, it is one of the most popular foreign movies in the Arab Middle East) and you can see, at least to some extent, how universal the drive not to be dominated by an outside force is. The irony that the movie Red Dawn (remake) depicts a North Korean invasion of the US when the converse is a very real and rational fear would be comical if it wasn't already so tragic.

Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered. Either by us *or* China.

As for the universality not to be dominated by an outside force, that's a relatively recent phenomenon often provoked by attempts at military unification under a non-ethnic empire.

I wonder if those Arab audiences realize the irony of a film where the leaders of a people supposedly being 'conquered' resist ethnic unification because, what's that line from Robert the Bruce's father? "We're as rich in English lands and titles as in Scottish?" I wonder if they realize the parallels to their own leaders.

It's just always jarring to see such a western concept as Nationalism be embraced so vigorously by non-Westerners, sometimes in reaction to Western attempts at domination.

I think you fundamentally misread Korean history if you interpret nationalism as a foreign import. Do some reading up on the romanticization of the Koryo Dynasty and the extents to which it went to maintain independence from China.

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Though I share the desire to see an overall de-escalation of the region, I also have to point out that historical context matters. As I have pointed out before, our own willingness to make a divided Korea the battleground for Cold War ambitions pretty much established the context for our current relations. And in that context, it is simply irrational for a besieged actor like North Korea to be the first to de-escalate -- even if the alternative means mass starvation.

Think about the popularity of Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart here in the US (and btw, it is one of the most popular foreign movies in the Arab Middle East) and you can see, at least to some extent, how universal the drive not to be dominated by an outside force is. The irony that the movie Red Dawn (remake) depicts a North Korean invasion of the US when the converse is a very real and rational fear would be comical if it wasn't already so tragic.

Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered. Either by us *or* China.

As for the universality not to be dominated by an outside force, that's a relatively recent phenomenon often provoked by attempts at military unification under a non-ethnic empire.

I wonder if those Arab audiences realize the irony of a film where the leaders of a people supposedly being 'conquered' resist ethnic unification because, what's that line from Robert the Bruce's father? "We're as rich in English lands and titles as in Scottish?" I wonder if they realize the parallels to their own leaders.

It's just always jarring to see such a western concept as Nationalism be embraced so vigorously by non-Westerners, sometimes in reaction to Western attempts at domination.

I think you fundamentally misread Korean history if you interpret nationalism as a foreign import. Do some reading up on the romanticization of the Koryo Dynasty and the extents to which it went to maintain independence from China.

And there's Joan of Arc's efforts to maintain French independence from England. I'm talking about the more modern form of nationalism, the one that emerged out of things like the reactions against Japanese attempts to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It always seemed like there was a parallel there with how European nationalism came out of things like the German War of Liberation.

In any case, even if Korea got an early, indigenous start on the concept, that doesn't mean it springs from a universal drive not to be dominated by an outside force. That drive waxes and wanes and is unevenly distributed across history. Now that we're living in an era of the nation-state that can seem universal, but I think it's a mistake to project that kind of thinking back into history.

Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered.

This is assuming that there is some divide or dislike of the ruling class. Unfortunately, as noted, they really do view the ruling class and the great leader particularly as divine. Not divinely inspired, or there by divine right, but actually a divine being. And questioning that heritage and other myths in the area is not exactly encouraged.

Can't find it now, but there was a story on the Escapist about a scientific study that helped "legitimize" the idea that North Korea should be in charge of the entire Korean penninsula (and getting into Russia and China) because they found the lair of the unicorn that their leader from however many centuries back had riden. They knew it was a unicorn lair, because the words unicorn lair were carved into a rock outside of the cave. This was taken as a great scientific and historical research success. No horse shaped skull with a horn attached... no evidence of dropings or anything that are genetically different from horses... they found a rock with the word unicorn lair that could have been carved as a joke like 200 years ago. That was their evidence that they presented to the people!

Demosthenes wrote:
Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered.

This is assuming that there is some divide or dislike of the ruling class. Unfortunately, as noted, they really do view the ruling class and the great leader particularly as divine. Not divinely inspired, or there by divine right, but actually a divine being. And questioning that heritage and other myths in the area is not exactly encouraged.

I'm not arguing it isn't popular, I'm arguing it isn't rational, and that just because it's popular doesn't mean it's rational; in fact, that bolsters my point that the popularity of a sentiment can be irrational if that popularity is the product of things like finding unicorn lairs and multiple holes-in-one the first time the leader played golf or whatever the story is today.

See where as the word irrational means to me going against your best interest. Starving or not (or just living or not) should certainly rank higher than divine leader's happiness for MOST people, but this is North Korea, and they ain't most people. That is their best interest, or they've been indoctrinated into believing it is... so while it would be irrational to us, it isn't necessarily to them, but we may be arguing more in semantics or something at this point.

Demosthenes wrote:

See where as the word irrational means to me going against your best interest. Starving or not (or just living or not) should certainly rank higher than divine leader's happiness for MOST people, but this is North Korea, and they ain't most people. That is their best interest, or they've been indoctrinated into believing it is... so while it would be irrational to us, it isn't necessarily to them, but we may be arguing more in semantics or something at this point. :)

Yeah, we probably are, and I don't want to get into an argument about semantics, those are boring.

Paleocon wrote:

How did they get there that fast?

Fast? It took us 13 years to go from captured Nazi V2 ballistic missiles to our first orbital launch. North Korean was given the first design for a ballistic missile by the Soviets way back in the early 80s and have been building them since 1984.

Paleocon wrote:

What if anything do we do about it?

1) Pass more UN resolutions condemning North Korea, perhaps even levy an economic sanction or two. But we all know putting economic sanctions on North Korea is just adding insult to injury. Their population is suffering already and turning the economic screws on them isn't going to magically make the North Korean government forget how to get something in orbit.

2) Rattle our saber more, even though that will just play into North Korean paranoia. And likely piss off China because we'll be parading carrier groups around in their backyard.

3) Panic and spend hundreds of billions (likely trillions) of dollars we don't have to build the Holy Grail of white elephant military programs: the Star Wars missile defense system.

Paleocon wrote:

What are the implications to foreign policy?

The implications are that we either need to figure out how to integrate North Korea back into the rest of the world or reacquaint ourselves with the idea living under the threat of a nuclear exchange, though this time with a country that is a bit less predictable than the USSR.

The other implication is that we can expect this technology to quickly make its way to other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran, who have also been working diligently on long-range missile systems for their own reasons.

The only saving grace is that putting something in orbit does not mean they have intercontinental ballistic missiles...yet. From what I've read, North Korea has a ways to go in miniaturizing all the components of a nuclear weapon to get them to fit on top of the missile and I don't think we have much idea of how good their targeting and navigation systems are. I figure we have a couple of years to a decade before they figure all that stuff out.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

How did they get there that fast?

Fast? It took us 13 years to go from captured Nazi V2 ballistic missiles to our first orbital launch. North Korean was given the first design for a ballistic missile by the Soviets way back in the early 80s and have been building them since 1984.

Paleocon wrote:

What if anything do we do about it?

1) Pass more UN resolutions condemning North Korea, perhaps even levy an economic sanction or two. But we all know putting economic sanctions on North Korea is just adding insult to injury. Their population is suffering already and turning the economic screws on them isn't going to magically make the North Korean government forget how to get something in orbit.

2) Rattle our saber more, even though that will just play into North Korean paranoia. And likely piss off China because we'll be parading carrier groups around in their backyard.

3) Panic and spend hundreds of billions (likely trillions) of dollars we don't have to build the Holy Grail of white elephant military programs: the Star Wars missile defense system.

Paleocon wrote:

What are the implications to foreign policy?

The implications are that we either need to figure out how to integrate North Korea back into the rest of the world or reacquaint ourselves with the idea living under the threat of a nuclear exchange, though this time with a country that is a bit less predictable than the USSR.

The other implication is that we can expect this technology to quickly make its way to other countries, such as Pakistan and Iran, who have also been working diligently on long-range missile systems for their own reasons.

The only saving grace is that putting something in orbit does not mean they have intercontinental ballistic missiles...yet. From what I've read, North Korea has a ways to go in miniaturizing all the components of a nuclear weapon to get them to fit on top of the missile and I don't think we have much idea of how good their targeting and navigation systems are. I figure we have a couple of years to a decade before they figure all that stuff out.

Pretty much.

Not only will it be necessary to miniaturize the warhead and work out the telemetry issue (actually aim the thing), but converting from liquid to solid fuel and establishing a source of solid fuel will be necessary to create a viable deterrent. Liquid fuel rockets tend to announce one's intentions since they take up to a week to fuel up in preparation for launch and can not be safely stored fueled.

Demosthenes wrote:
Except popular =/= rational. It's irrational for a besieged ruling class to be the first to de-escalate, but for most North Koreans, there's an argument there that it's pretty rational to get conquered.

This is assuming that there is some divide or dislike of the ruling class. Unfortunately, as noted, they really do view the ruling class and the great leader particularly as divine. Not divinely inspired, or there by divine right, but actually a divine being. And questioning that heritage and other myths in the area is not exactly encouraged.

Can't find it now, but there was a story on the Escapist about a scientific study that helped "legitimize" the idea that North Korea should be in charge of the entire Korean penninsula (and getting into Russia and China) because they found the lair of the unicorn that their leader from however many centuries back had riden. They knew it was a unicorn lair, because the words unicorn lair were carved into a rock outside of the cave. This was taken as a great scientific and historical research success. No horse shaped skull with a horn attached... no evidence of dropings or anything that are genetically different from horses... they found a rock with the word unicorn lair that could have been carved as a joke like 200 years ago. That was their evidence that they presented to the people!

Even if there is a divide between the people and the ruling class and the rulers are unpopular, that in no way means that the perceived likely alternative (the return of Japanese style atrocities, the loss of sovereignty, and the wholesale prostitution of all that is holy) is any more acceptable. And considering the US fought the bloodiest war in Korea's history in support of a regime largely installed by the Japanese army, the perception is not an irrational one.

the South Koreans (and several other countries) have managed to screw it up.

How so? They seem pretty successful to me?

A lot of the analysis I'm reading right now is kind of dismissive about the actual technical work. Homer Hickam (author and NASA engineer) is saying that this is basically an old Soviet rocket they've cobbled together.

There's a great little piece up on CNN that says that it's not about launching one rocket, it's about launching multiple rockets.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/opinio...

This one doesn't matter so much if the next 9 blow up on the pad.

This is also a lot different than what South Korea was trying to do. They were trying to build a rocket from scratch, not reassemble one from Cold War discards.

So all in all, something to keep an eye on, but quite a game changer just yet.