Pyongyang's threat: Nuclear games(manship)
North Korea appears to have the ability to launch nuclear warheads atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States. Yet the Obama administration, bent on eliminating nuclear weapons, downplays that growing threat.
Sounding the alarm in the journal Comparative Strategy is National Institute for Public Policy scholar Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic analyst and policy official. He writes that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) last year publicly expressed “moderate confidence” that North Korea has nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles. But Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other administration officials maintain its nuclear-strike capabilities are untested or limited.
In the wake of Mr. Schneider's report, the DIA director and his deputy resigned over “disputes within the Pentagon and intelligence agencies,” according to The Washington Free Beacon. That's hardly a promising sign that this administration is dealing properly with Pyongyang's missile threat and increasingly bellicose rhetoric.
“The Obama administration's ‘nuclear zero' ideology does not impress North Korea,” Schneider says. “Indeed, it may have precipitated the unprecedented nuclear attack threats from North Korea.”
President Obama must recognize how his nuke-free policy fantasies magnify the all-too-real threat that Kim Jong Un poses — and change course to deter North Korea from attempting to devastate an American city with a nuclear missile.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor