U.S. to bolster missile defenses to counter North Korea threat: Hagel

WASHINGTON Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:13pm EDT

1 of 3. U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel speaks at his news conference at the Pentagon in Washington March 15, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans on Friday to bolster U.S. missile defenses in response to "irresponsible and reckless provocations" by North Korea, which threatened a preventative nuclear strike against the United States last week.

Hagel said the Pentagon would add 14 new anti-missile interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska - an effective reversal of an early Obama administration decision - and move ahead with the deployment of a second missile-defense radar in Japan.

The Pentagon also left open the possibility of creating a site on the U.S. East Coast where the Pentagon could field more interceptors capable of striking down an incoming missile. The 14 additional interceptor deployments would cost nearly $1 billion and must be approved by Congress.

"By taking the steps I outlined today we will strengthen our homeland defense, maintain our commitments to our allies and partners, and make clear to the world that the United States stands firm against aggression," Hagel told a news conference.

North Korea issued its threat last week to stage a preemptive nuclear attack against the United States as the United Nations readied new sanctions against Pyongyang in response to its February 12 nuclear test.

Experts say North Korea is years away from being able to hit the continental United States with a nuclear weapon, despite having worked for decades to achieve a nuclear capability.

But Hagel said the moves announced by the Pentagon were justified to stay ahead of the threat, underscored by the nuclear test and a December rocket launch that analysts believe was aimed at developing technology for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

Hagel also cited North Korea's display last April of what appeared to be a road-mobile ICBM.

The Pentagon said the United States had informed China, North Korea's neighbor and closest ally, of its decision to add more interceptors but declined to characterize Beijing's reaction.

U.S. SAYS SYSTEMS NOT AIMED AT CHINA OR RUSSIA

U.S. officials say its missile defense systems are not designed to counter the large number of ICBMs in arsenals in China or Russia and are focused instead on the threat from North Korea or, potentially, Iran.

Friday's announcement came with a key caveat - the Pentagon said it would only purchase the extra interceptors if they perform appropriately in tests. The interceptors in question have not hit a target since 2008, a defense official said.

Boeing Co. is the prime contractor of the system. Key Boeing subcontractors include Raytheon Co., which makes the kill vehicle, and Orbital Sciences Corp, which makes the rocket booster.

Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed confidence in the missiles and said he believed the steps taken by the United States would make North Korea's young leader, Kim Jung-un, think twice before acting on bellicose rhetoric.

"We not only intend to put the mechanics in place to deny any potential North Korean objective to launch a missile to the United States, but also to impose costs on them if they do," he told reporters.

"And we believe that this young lad ought to be deterred by that. And if he's not, we'll be ready."

The addition of another 14 interceptors amounts to a reversal of an Obama administration decision in 2010 to stop expansion of the missile interceptor system at 30 interceptors. The Bush administration had planned to deploy a total of 44.

The United States currently has 26 interceptors deployed at Fort Greely and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Congressman Mike Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, said the Obama administration had began "to realize the shortcomings of its missile defense strategy."

"Now that the administration has decided to see clearly, America can get back on the right course," Howard McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, lamenting lost time and resources.

In a sign of fiscal pressures facing the Pentagon, U.S. officials acknowledged they were also forgoing development of a new anti-missile interceptor that would have been deployed in Europe. They said European defense would be unaffected.

Officials said the United States would move forward with congressionally mandated environmental impact studies for alternative sites in the United States for deploying additional ground-based interceptors, if needed.

Winnefeld said locations on the East Coast were being considered but declined to offer details.

"We're still looking at sites," he said.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Mohammad Zargham and David Brunnstrom)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (19)
xcanada2 wrote:
I forget: Why are we having a fight with North Korea??

I know they are threatening us because we have sanctions on them, but what exactly is our beef? Their nuclear program? But, it is driven by our sanctions, and threatening war exercises on their border.

Mar 15, 2013 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
otrcomm wrote:
This is absolute scare tactics and military industrial complex pork. I knew Hagel didn’t have any experience to run DOD. He got sold a bill of goods here. North Korea will never have ICBMs with active warhead busses that can reach Japan, much less the United States.

Mar 15, 2013 4:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
emanon63026 wrote:
I thought that we had submarines that would do this. Just rotate Nuclear subs with warheads through the area…. Isn’t that what they do?

Mar 15, 2013 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.