Alaska News

Can Alaska defend a North Korean missile attack?

With North Korea mobilizing to test-fire a medium-range missile, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says he's confident in the nation's ability to thwart the threat.

America's defense includes Fort Greely, Alaska, a far-flung military installation stocked with missiles designed to blow up an enemy warhead, along with a similar complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

"Our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency," Hagel told reporters during a press conference at the Pentagon. "We have every capacity to deal with any action North Korea will take to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies."

Yet, the 26 interceptor missiles housed at Fort Greely have never flown. All of the test interceptors have been launched from Vandenberg. And the track record, including the two most recent attempts to strike down a mock enemy missile, isn't great.

America's missile defense shield has long been controversial, and not just because of whether it would actually work. Since 1985, the U.S. has spent nearly $158 billion on the program, with $8.3 billion allocated in 2012 alone. When adjusted for inflation, the total cost is roughly the same as sending a man to the moon during the 1960s Apollo Space program.

The U.S. has taken its ground-based defense system on 15 missile-killing test drives, racking up only a 53 percent success rate. Seven times since tests first began in 1999, bad sensors, guidance, rocket separation, software or launching errors caused the exercises to end in failure.

Citing the raising threats from North Korea, the Obama administration announced in March the U.S. will invest $1 billion in expanding Fort Greely's capabilities, adding 14 more interceptors by 2017. With four interceptors located in California, the expansion would increase the nation's ground-missile defense system by nearly 50 percent, bringing the total number of interceptors from 30 to 44.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite Hagel's optimism about the nation's readiness, critics have long questioned the capabilities of the U.S. missile defense shield.

A report from the National Research Council released in late 2012 concluded the American protections against missile attacks are far from adequate. The panel, which consists of scientists, engineers and weapons experts concluded that the missile defense system should be rebuilt from top to bottom, though the Pentagon dismissed that characterization as pedestrian, according to The New York Times.

The report specifically called for more missile defense sites outside of Alaska and California. It also concluded the current system could probably handle crude missiles from North Korea, but it's unlikely it could handle anything more sophisticated.

In March, Union of Concerned Scientists missile defense expert and senior scientist David Wright identified what he called the enduring illusion of missile defense.

Both the West Coast's ground-based interceptors and the Navy's ship-based interceptors have no real-world proof of performance, he wrote. In tests, the interceptors are responding to highly controlled scenarios, knowing which part of a rocket-payload nuclear missile to target. But in a real-life scenario, an enemy is likely to employ countermeasures, including decoys in its launch, making it that much more difficult for an interceptor to not only identify it's real target, but to also adjust quickly enough if it needs to redirect its course.

For these reasons, Wright bluntly calls U.S. claims that it can defend with certainty against a North Korean attack "nonsense."

North Korea missiles untested

Whether North Korea is capable of launching a mid-range missile remains to be seen.

Because of the country's successful launch of a satellite into orbit in December, missile experts believe the same rocket technology can be readily adapted to propel a warhead.

If a mid-range missile from Korea, called a Musudan, were aimed at the United States, its 3,500-mile maximum range would likely take it no farther than Guam, depending on how heavy a load it carries and how accurately it flies. The United States, including Alaska, and the island of Hawaii aren't likely targets for this size of missile.

If a launch is made within the next few days -- there is speculation it could come on April 15, the birthday of the North Korean regime's founder -- it may offer an intelligence opportunity for the United States, according to The Christian Science Monitor. The act would answer whether the missile works as North Korea claims, or if it exists at all.

There are potentially two long-distance missiles in North Korea's arsenal capable of reaching the United States. The Taepodong 2 and Unha-3 missiles are thought to travel up to 4,263 miles and 6,214 miles respectively -- far enough to reach Alaska and Hawaii. The Unha-3 could reach well into Canada and the U.S. mainland. But neither missile has demonstrated the capability yet.

As rhetoric, speculation and readiness surrounding a North Korean show of force escalates, Department of Defense officials aren't willing to offer specifics about its missile defense capabilities. Defense spokeswoman Catherine Wilkinson wouldn't comment specifically on what readiness postures, if any, Fort Greely has taken due to the North Korean threat.

"We stand ready to defend ourselves, our allies and our national interests," she wrote in an email Wednesday.

Low morale and pinup calendars?

Beyond the system's technical capacity is the readiness of missile defense personnel who control the operations. And over the past year, the Missile Defense Agency has had more than one black cloud descend on its work place culture.

In May, a U.S. Inspector General report identified that Lt. General Patrick O'Reilly had created "a command climate of fear and low morale."

Then, in August, the agency warned its employees and contractors against surfing the internet for pornographic sites, an apparent response the inappropriate use of the agency's computer network.

And more controversy came in September when a World War 2-style pinup calendar featuring topless women, including the wife of Lt. Col. Joseph Miley of Fort Greely, triggered an investigation. The anonymous complaint that initiated the investigation also alleged an improper relationship had occurred between the photographer and another soldier's wife.

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com and suzanna(at)alaskadispatch.com

Jill Burke

Jill Burke is a former writer and columnist for Alaska Dispatch News.

Suzanna Caldwell

Suzanna Caldwell is a former reporter for Alaska Dispatch News and Alaska Dispatch. She left the ADN in 2017.

ADVERTISEMENT