Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
North Korean Launches Several Missiles
Aired July 04, 2006 - 16:58 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to THE SITUATION ROOM. I'm John King in Washington.
Want to update our international viewers and our viewers here in the United States on a breaking news story this July Fourth, Independence Day here in the United States -- North Korea launching a major provocation with the United States and others, launching not one, not two, but three missiles, according to our sources.
Want to get the latest on this developing situation from our national security correspondent, David Ensor -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: John, first, there were two Scud missiles launched -- we believe they were Scud missiles -- smaller missiles, launched by North Korea within about 15 minutes of each other.
And then came word from State Department officials and others around the government that the North Koreans had, indeed launched that missile we have all been watching for the last few weeks, the Taepodong-2 that was on launchpad and apparently being fueled up for a period of a few weeks.
However, it appears that the Taepodong-2 missile failed. Something went wrong with it. We are not clear on exactly what. But there was a problem with the missile. It may have broken up soon after launch.
In any case, it is not a successful launch of that Taepodong-2 missile. But three launches by North Korea in a very short period of time, they started very shortly after the space shuttle was launched by the United States on July Fourth -- John.
KING: And, David, many speculating that that is no coincidence...
(CROSSTALK)
KING: ... that Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, doesn't necessarily have a military objective, if you will, although it would be an embarrassment if the world sees his most developed missile technology fail on a test, but that his objective is more political, if you will. Explain that.
ENSOR: He wants to get Americans' attention, and he assumes, according to the analysts I speak to, that this is a good day to do that. That to see missiles going up, given the fear that the long- range missile might potentially be able to reach U.S. soil, certainly Alaska, maybe even the West Coast, that this would be a day to launch missiles and get plenty of attention, something that he seeks.
He is trying to improve his bargaining position in what he assumes, according to the analysts, will eventually be sort of grand bargain talks about all the issues, vis-a-vis North Korea. And, of course, the fear is that North Korea is moving towards having more and more capable long-range missiles, and that it already has nuclear devices, and that eventually it will develop a nuclear device that can sit as a warhead atop a missile.
So, each one of these technological steps is of great concern. And obviously, U.S. analysts who are now telling us that something went wrong with that missile are pleased to see that, at a minimum -- John.
KING: Obviously those analysts will study all of these firings, especially if there was a failure in the test of this longer-range missile. Up until that point, David, up until that launch a short time ago, what was the best guess of the CIA and other intelligence agencies as to the range of North Korea's premier missile, if you will, its longest-range missile?
ENSOR: You know, they said that they really, really didn't want to hazard a guess on that, but the range of estimates that I've heard from different officials around the government varies from about 1,000 miles, up to a range, you know, 2,500 or more, a range that would reach Alaska, and potentially, depending on the curvature of the Earth and various other factors, could reach, you know, Seattle, Spokane, that sort of place.
KING: Our national security correspondent, David Ensor.
David, thank you very much. And we'll of course check back with you as soon as more reporting comes in.
Now, the Bush administration had said and had told the world that testing that longer-range missile would be viewed as a serious provocation. It had warned North Korea not to take such a step.
Our Ed Henry standing by at the White House.
Ed, wondering, any reaction as yet from the administration?
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: John, we've been pushing and prodding for almost an hour now, trying to get White House reaction. We do not have that yet for several reasons.
One is that, since these missiles were launched in the middle of the night over in North Korea, obviously U.S. officials still trying to get a handle since it's dark over there exactly what did happen, trying to sort all that out.
Secondly, as you know, obviously since it's the Fourth of July, White House officials, most of them are home already. They were thinking of coming back later tonight for the fireworks display on the National Mall.
The White House Press Office right behind me, in fact, is locked right now. There is really nobody in there. We've obviously been calling, e-mailing, trying to get reaction, but again, senior officials trying to sort this out before they get out there too far out on a limb and before they really have a handle on the situation.
It's worth noting that yesterday White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked repeatedly about this very possibility. He kept saying he did not want to, as he has for days, said once again he does not want to talk about hypotheticals.
Obviously now it's no longer a hypothetical. What Tony Snow did stress is that what the U.S. wants is for North Korea to come back to the table for those six-party talks. After the developments over the last couple of hours, the chances of that pretty much nil -- John.
KING: And Ed, as you know, one of the great debates has been, including pressure from some of the parties in those six-party talks, that the administration should be more proactive, that the administration should be more generous in putting incentives on the table for North Korea. The White House has said, no, that there is a package of incentives on the table and North Korea should take those, come back to the table, and then if it has any other requests, do them in a negotiating format.
As this world has waited to see if this test would come about -- and apparently it has today -- has there been any wiggle room, if you will, in the administration's position about what it is prepared to do if Kim Jong-il returns to the table?
HENRY: There has not been. They have tried to take a firm stance, as you have noted, and not give more of a carat, instead focusing on the stick.
And also, we have to remember, obviously, that the U.S. government is also dealing with Iran right now and the threat, their thirst for nuclear weapons as well. The president next week about to go to Germany, then on to Russia for the G-8 summit.
Obviously, Iran at the top of the agenda there. Now given what's happened with North Korea, these are two -- obviously twin problems facing the administration, facing the world community. Coming out of the situation in Iraq, and given the criticism that this White House has faced, that it did not give diplomacy enough of a chance before the war in Iraq.
Certainly in the Iran situation, we have seen this White House, the president in particular, focusing again and again on diplomacy, trying to build an international coalition to fight Iran. Certainly, we're going to see the same here with North Korea in terms of trying to show that the U.S. has a lot of allies in pushing back against North Korea this very provocative action -- John.
KING: Ed Henry for us at the White House.
And Ed, we will check back with you as reaction comes in from the White House.
Ed, thank you very much.
I want to bring back into our conversation Wendy Sherman. She joins us on the television, former assistant secretary of state -- I hope I have that right, Wendy -- in the Clinton administration. One of the few people on earth who has sat across the table from the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il.
Wendy, you heard Ed Henry talking about the debate and you know this debate well, as to whether the Bush administration should put more carrots on the table, if you will, and less stick in trying to get North Korea back to the bargaining table. After something like this, I assume the reflex of any administration would be not to come forward with more incentives at a time you have essentially been challenged.
WENDY SHERMAN, FMR. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Absolutely. One would expect from any administration for there to be sanctions, for there to be a tough response to this. At the same time, as I said earlier, in 1998, when there was a launch over the Sea of Japan, which also failed, actually, but was a longer-range missile than U.S. analysts thought North Korea had, we did have a tough response.
But at the same time, the Clinton administration knew that it had to take a very hard look at our policy toward North Korea. That we were going to have to deal with them in some better way than we had in the past, because what had happened at the end of the senior Bush administration had not ended their nuclear program, and North Korea was becoming very provocative, again.
And we also thought there was a new underground nuclear reactor site, potentially. And that led to appointing Bill Perry, the former secretary of defense, as a North Korea policy coordinator. And I had the privilege of working with him as the counselor of the State Department at the time, and then took over that role as special adviser to the president of North Korea when Bill stepped back.
But what we did was really go at a very serious and tough negotiation with the north. We're making great progress on stopping these long-range missiles. But the Clinton administration came to an end and the Bush administration decided to try to use all stick, no carrots, as we say.
And what we have, as I said earlier, is we have gone from having enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, which existed at the end of senior Bush administration, to now having enough plutonium for six, eight, 10 nuclear weapons.
And the reason these long-range missiles matter so much is because there is nothing quite as lethal as a long-range missile that might ultimately be able to carry a small nuclear warhead. And that's why the missiles matter so very much. KING: Wendy, I know from my days covering both the Clinton and the Bush White House, that the Bush team has a slightly different perspective on the status, if you will, of the negotiations at the handover time. But we'll leave that political argument for another debate -- another day.
Obviously, Ed raised a key point in terms of the politics of the moment, the world politics of the moment. The administration and others have given Iran until July 12th to respond to the package of incentives on the table designed to get Iran to set aside its nuclear program. We assume after three missile firings on this Independence Day here in the United States, the U.N. Security Council will also be dealing in the short term, if not within the next few hours, with the North Korea question as well.
This president is in a tough position. Not only politically here in the United States, but his credibility has been called into question around the world because of the unpopularity of the Iraq war, the debates about the quality of U.S. intelligence.
Does that, does the president's broader standing have any impact as he goes now to the world community and seeks help? First with Iran, and now, obviously, and perhaps more importantly in the immediate term, with North Korea.
SHERMAN: Well, I think that the steps that the president has taken recently regarding Iran, which is really to enter into what I'd call real diplomacy, by agreeing with partners in the process to a package that includes incentives, as well as disincentives, he has not done that with North Korea anytime lately.
Ambassador Chris Hill, who is the senior negotiator right now with North Korea, is very capable, a very able professional and a very tough negotiator, but he hasn't been able to go to these discussions in the six-party talks with very much in his pocket, because the administration, as you probably know, has been split.
There are the hawks, so to speak, who only want to try to squeeze this regime to its death, and those who want to take the kind of approach that's being taken with Iran. Squeezing North Korea to death, although it's hurt them, the counterfeiting shutdown that the Treasury Department has been engaged in, is not going to dismantle the regime of Kim Jong-il. And I think that some in the administration understand that they really have to take a different approach.
North Korea was also surprised, I'm sure, that the package for Iran included the possibility of a light water reactor, the very kind of reactor that the Clinton administration had negotiated which the Bush administration ultimately shut down because they did not want to give light water reactors to North Korea.
KING: Wendy Sherman, we thank you again for your thoughts and insights, invaluable insights.
Wendy Sherman, former top State Department official in the Clinton administration, helping us understand this breaking news story today.
Three missile firings at least by the government of North Korea on this Independence Day here in the United States. A major national security provocation, if you will, for the Bush administration.
Let's try to get some new information now from our national security correspondent, David Ensor -- David.
ENSOR: Well, John, we can report that Kyoto News Service of Japan has now come without a report that there is a fourth missile that has been launched and fired into the Sea of Japan that lies between Japan and the mainland. So it looks as if this is a major military exercise involving multiple missile tests.
And they are pointed in the direction of Japan, although they are landing, for the most part, short of it, as far as we can tell. But clearly, at least three shorter-range missile tests, assuming Kyoto News has got it right about that additional one. And then the launching of the Taepodong-2, which is an intercontinental missile which potentially, analysts believe, could reach U.S. soil, but which apparently failed at some point very early in the launch process -- John.
KING: David, you were listening earlier, I know, when I was talking to Joe Cirincione, who was calling this a stunt. At one point, when you go from one missile, to two missiles, to three missiles, to perhaps now four missiles does a stunt become a confrontation?
ENSOR: Well, it's certainly a cry for attention. That at a minimum, it certainly is.
It has -- it is a very dangerous move by North Korea. They are running the risk of some sort of retaliation by someone. Firing missiles in the direction of countries is not taken kindly, and Japan, although it has historically had a very sort of pacific approach to international relations, has beefed up its military in recent years, and was very much angered by North Korea's missile test over the top of it in the late '90s.
You can be sure that the Japanese are going to respond in some way to this. At a minimum, I think you can expect additional sanctions to be voted and voted rather quickly by the Japanese parliament -- John.
KING: National Security Correspondent David Ensor.
Thank you very much.
And as David just noted, Japan's reaction one of the key questions.
We're joined on the telephone now by CNN's Atika Shubert, who is in Tokyo.
Shock waves here in the United States. I assume, Atika, shock waves across Japan and much of Asia as well.
ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Definitely, it's a big shock here in Tokyo. Many Japanese are simply waking up to this news.
We do know that of the first two missiles, one of them apparently landing just short of the northern island Hokkaido here in Japan, landing in the Sea of Japan. We're still trying to confirm the place of the other missiles being launched. Either way, however, Japan has already said that if a missile test was conducted, it would prep ahead for economic sanctions and possibly take -- ask for sanctions from the U.N. Security Council.
Now, at the moment, there has been no official response from the Japanese government. But you can be sure that's likely to come soon. For many people here in Japan, definitely a shock.
KING: And, Atika, you were noting that, while the world was awaiting whether North Korea would test this one long-range missile, Japan was talking of more sanctions, perhaps going to the United Nations. Help our viewers understand how -- whether that is a shift in posture from the Koizumi government. Has it been getting more tough, more frustrated, more impatient?
SHUBERT: It definitely has been getting more tough, more hard- line over the years. Ever since the first missile launch test in 1998 of the Taepodong-1 missile, that missile actually flew over Japan, landing in the Sea of Japan, and that was a major shock to the Japanese public and really ratcheted up concerns and anxiety here over what North Korea's intentions are.
Now, (INAUDIBLE) the Japanese public will react with that same anxiety, and the government will (INAUDIBLE) a harder line.
KING: We've...
SHUBERT: (INAUDIBLE) sanctions, which could have a devastating impact on North Korea's economy.
KING: Atika Shubert joining us, our correspondent from Tokyo.
Atika, thank you very much. We will check back in with you as well as developments warrant.
Tracking this breaking news story.
Again, North Korea firing not one, not two, but at least three, and according to some reports four, missiles on this Independence Day here in the United States, raising national security concerns for the Bush administration and governments across Asia.
Joining us now to discuss this is Jim Walsh from Boston. He's an international security expert with the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology.
Jim, what do you make of this? Obviously a challenge to the Bush administration. Why now? JIM WALSH, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: Well, why now? Because I think as David and Wendy both indicated, this is a political act meant to say, hey, pay attention to North Korea. You're talking about Iran. You're talking about Iraq. But the six-party talks are stalled, no one's meeting.
And so it is, as David Ensor, I think, described rightly earlier, a cry for help. But these fireworks, these Fourth of July fireworks, I think it's important for viewers to know, do not represent an immediate military threat to the United States.
The consensus of experts is that that -- that missile cannot reach the U.S., cannot reach the West Coast, cannot reach Alaska. This is the second test that North Korea has conducted of a long-range missile in eight years. Two tests does not a missile system make.
The U.S., for example, used to test missiles at least 20 times before it had a usable missile, and we're far more advanced than North Korea is. So, again, as David and Wendy indicated, this is primarily a political act meant to try to force those parties in the six-party talks to focus on North Korea's concerns.
KING: Well, Jim, I want to get to some of the security concerns in a minute, but I want your take. If there's a viewer watching on Independence Day here in the United States, or a viewer watching us on CNN International around the world, who perhaps hasn't followed this as closely, who perhaps lives in what we might call a mature democracy, to hear you say that somebody would launch four missiles to get attention might strike them as odd.
Explain as best you can the calculations of Kim Jong-il, perhaps the most secretive regime on earth.
WALSH: Absolutely, and I understand this. And believe me, I think there will be domestic political repercussions in Japan over this.
The Japanese are going to wake up and be scared. And I'm sure Americans are going to be scared. But that's why it's important to take a deep breath here.
If there are four missile launches -- and we should remind ourselves that often early reports turn out not always to be 100 percent right. But if there are four launches, three of those are short-range missiles. These are short-range missiles that everyone knows North Korea has had. They've tested them in the past, and have nothing do with the moratorium they had imposed on themselves for long-range missiles.
This long-range missile that they did test, one of the four, was a break. It is the first time they have done it since 1998. But the missile test failed.
And missiles, believe it or not, John -- actually, intercontinental ballistic missiles from an engineering standpoint are far more difficult to make than actually a nuclear weapon. You don't want to launch one of those things up and have it turn around and crash on your own soil.
So it's very difficult technology. They clearly have not mastered it. Most estimates are they will not master it for another 10 years.
So this firing of missiles, missiles that, for the most part, we know that they have, and the other one being rudimentary, are really in an attempt to say, hey, pay attention to my concerns. Come back to the negotiation table -- that is, the Americans -- but without putting these economic squeezes on us. Pay attention to us.
KING: Well, I assume Kim Jong-il has the attention of the White House and of the other partners to the so-called six-party talks. And perhaps the attention of the world on this day.
The president of the United States now faces a decision, does he respond to this cry for attention with a carrot, or does he respond with a stick? Or I guess you could say he could respond with both if he so chooses.
What's your advice?
WALSH: Well, I guess in the short term I would give two pieces of advice. One, in the short term, of course he's going to respond in a way that is tough and says this is unacceptable, this is provocative. But he needs to be sensible about this.
That is to say, after an initial response in which he says this is provocative and he stands with our Japanese allies, as he should, he should also say, OK, what are we going to do to really solve this problem? Because simply saying no, no, no, or sanction, sanction, sanction is not going to resolve the problem, because North Korea's -- is going to continue to reprocess plutonium, they're going to continue to make nuclear weapons. And so where does that get us?
So, I expect a tough response early. But at some point, we're actually going to have to address the fundamental issue, otherwise North Korea is just going to keep on doing this.
And remember, John, you will remember back to just before the Iraq war, this is typical North Korean behavior, to be provocative., to try to draw attention to themselves. They did this on the eve of the war in Iraq and they're doing it again now.
And so I think we want sober, even-handed responses that show that we're tough, that show that we support our allies, but that don't create more problems in the end. That hold open the possibility that we can talk and try to resolve this crisis.
When I was in North Korea a year ago, last July, the North Koreans made hints to me that they were opened to negotiating about getting rid of their missile program. I think we need to be serious about that negotiation, as well as being tough.
KING: And is there one government in the world -- many have speculated it is the Chinese -- is there one government in the world that can get on the phone, go face to face with Kim Jong-il and say, you have to get your act together, you have to move now? Or is this man truly the lone ranger?
WALSH: John, you put your finger on what is probably the most important question tonight. And that is, where is China on this?
Allegedly, the Chinese intervened and spoke to the North Korean officials, saying, you know, don't do this, this is not a good idea. We can work something out. We can come back to the six-party talks another way. So, it appears, at least on its face, that the North Koreans have given a slap in the face to the Chinese.
Now, the Chinese have a lot at stake here. They want those six- party talks. And if they don't get them, that leaves them with a loss of face and a loss of a policy.
So the big question as we go forward is, what's going to happen to Japanese domestic politics? Are the hawks and the hard-liners going to benefit from this? And most importantly, where are the Chinese?
KING: All right. We may check back in with you as this day develops. Thank you very much for your insights.
I'm going to have you stop right there, though, because we want to bring in Barbara Starr on the phone, our Pentagon correspondent.
Obviously, the military has been watching in anticipation of this possible test of this one long-range North Korean missile. According to reports, at least three, perhaps four, missiles fired on this day.
Barbara, what your military sources telling you?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: John, we have just spoken to a number of military officials. And what they are confirming at this point is three launches. They believe there were two short-range missile launches by North Korea, and another missile launch, a third launch that, at this point, they believe possibly was in fact the Taepodong.
Let's be very clear. What they are doing at this hour is assessing all the telemetry, all the signals intelligence, all the satellite imagery they have, and coming to a final judgment on that question.
But what a very senior official told me a few moments ago was (INAUDIBLE) came from the very area in North Korea that the U.S. military and the intelligence community had been monitoring for the Taepodong. So, clearly, they do believe it was the Taepodong.
This official also, John, going on to say that that large North Korean missile, in his words, failed very quickly after launch. And for the military, that's a very key fact.
That signals to them that the North Koreans definitely had technical problems with the missile and that it failed perhaps in the first few minutes. Because, of course, this whole question of a U.S. missile defense posture of the United States firing a missile to try and shoot down an incoming North Korean missile, that kind of intercept would have happened any time after the first, five, six, maybe seven minutes of the North Korean launch.
And what we can confirm at this point is that the U.S. military took no action. It didn't have to. The North Korean missile never made it to that second phase, where the U.S. was going to have to deal with it.
So it failed very, very quickly. But it's very important, John, to the U.S. military to get as much information as they can from this launch, because, to be quite blunt, they were prepared. If President Bush ordered a shootdown, the United States military had all the pieces in place.
They had the interceptor missiles in Alaska, in California. NORAD in Colorado was on alert. Everything was activated. Everything was ready to go to shoot down an incoming North Korean missile, if President Bush gave the order.
All the pieces were in place, but it appears at this hour that the military didn't have to do it. The North Koreans failed all on their own -- John.
KING: And Barbara, of course there are questions about the capability of the missile intercept system as well. Not in use today, apparently. So we'll leave that for another day.
But there were additional U.S. military assets moved into the region, were there not, if for nothing else but to observe and watch?
STARR: Absolutely, John.
Over the last several weeks, there were a number of -- a schedule, U.S. Navy exercises out in the Pacific. But let's be very clear. All of that was boosted up just a little bit.
The U.S. stepped up its spy plane reconnaissance missions over the area. U.S. Navy ships with radars and special electronic signal monitoring equipment had moved into the area.
North Korea was under surveillance by the United States 24/7, day by day, over the last several weeks. We were getting from our sources weather reports, what it was looking like over North Korea, sort of the day to day, will they or won't they launch?
And that was the reason, frankly, that the Pentagon, NORAD, the U.S. military put all those pieces in place to be ready to go, because they clearly felt they couldn't war game it. They didn't have a good idea of what North Korea really might do. So they were ready to go.
And they are now making that final assessment tonight about looking at the intelligence, looking at the information, calculating exactly what North Korea did, exactly where it failed, and what the U.S. military may have to learn from this. And what its next steps might be.
KING: Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, with fascinating information and insight.
Barbara, we'll check back in with you as you get more from your sources.
Barbara, thank you very much.
Want to bring in now Richard Roth, our chief U.N. correspondent. He's in our New York bureau.
Richard, a challenge for the Bush administration, but also a challenge for the world. As you full well now, there has been frustration about the stalling of the six-party talks. North Korea fires at least three missiles, according to Barbara Starr. Some reports say four.
What happens now?
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: Well, there won't be at this point a meeting at the U.N. Security Council tonight. But there definitely will be talks tomorrow morning. And future actions still undetermined.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton is working the phones, talking with other ambassadors on the U.N. Security Council. I talked to one country that had been contacted by the ambassador. The U.S. said on June 22nd that, "Prudent consultations were already under way in advance of any potential missile launch."
This is something the U.S. opposed. Many other countries on the Security Council, especially Japan, will be of great concern. And it is likely the U.S. and Japan, and maybe one or two other countries will be pushing a statement, a resolution, something on -- tomorrow.
Now the big obstacle possibly could be China. That will be the country to watch for how smooth reaction from the Security Council will be.
In the past, China has been North Korea's staunchest ally, has been very hesitant to even put the item on the so-called agenda of the U.N. Security Council a couple of years ago when North Korea heated up. It never really went anywhere diplomatically.
Where the U.S. tries to keep the focus, the so-called six-party talks that have been once again stalled. John Bolton said a few weeks ago everybody's waiting for the six-party talks, for North Korea to come back to those talks. The U.S. was upset that, still North Korea has not been willing to do that, issuing terms that Washington was not willing to go along with.
KING: As you know, Richard, there has been pressure from some of the parties to those six-party talks and also others around the world who think the Bush administration has been too stingy, if you will. That if it wants to bring North Korea to the table, it should be more proactive in offering incentives, more encouraging in saying it is open to diplomatic ties.
Is an event like this clearly a provocation, as well as a raising of hand, if you will, from Pyongyang -- will that strengthen the U.S. position that it should be sticks for now only? Or will it raise pressure to the United States, that this has gone on too long? You have to give...
ROTH: Well, I think -- I think on this one, it probably will strengthen the United States' hand. For Washington, the terrible duo, North Korea and Iran. On one hand, with Iran, the United States is expressing a little bit more willingness to talk, should Iran suspend first its uranium enrichment program, but it has for years ruled out any direct dialogue with North Korea.
But Tehran says its nuclear program is purely civilian, peaceful purpose. North Korea launching missiles, that's a totally different story.
KING: Richard Roth for us in New York, our chief U.N. correspondent.
Richard, thank you very much. And we'll check in with you as this breaking news develops.
We thank our viewers in the United States and around the world. We will continue to track this breaking story.
We're going to take a short break, but again, stay with us at CNN. Breaking news, North Korea provoking a national security crisis for the United States, questions for the world, launching missiles on this Independence Day here in the United States.
Stay with us. We'll take a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KING: I'm John King in Washington. Breaking news this afternoon, North Korea firing three missiles, we are told by our sources, three missiles on this Independence Day here in the United States, awaiting reaction from the Bush White House, at the United Nations, phone calls and consultations underway as well, but for more on exactly what happened and what had happened, we bring in our national security correspondent, David Ensor -- David.
ENSOR: John, it started with a single missile launch, a short- range missile, as far as anyone can tell, that landed in the Sea of Japan. The Japanese, NHK Network said about 600 miles from Japanese territory, from mainland Japan, up near some islands. Then there was another launch within about 15 minutes, and then the reports came in from multiple sources here in Washington that it appeared that the Taepodong-2 missile, which world has been watching whether or not North Korea would launch for several weeks now, had indeed been launched by North Korea. However, State Department officials tell us that within 35, 40 seconds of launch, it went wrong and the missile did not continue on its flight, assume it must have fallen out of the sky.
The Pentagon is telling our Barbara Starr that they think the missile came from the area where the Taepodong-2 missile was. They're not ready to quite say that's definitely what was fired, but that is what other officials believe was the case.
So you have North Korea launching multiple missiles. And you have also a report from the Kyoto News Service in Japan and one state department official here saying that a fourth missile, a fourth smaller missile had also been launched. A lot of military activity by North Korea just in the last few hours -- John.
KING: And David, help us translate from the world of intelligence into the world of diplomacy, at least three missiles fired, one of them the Taepodong-2, the longer-range missile. I assume had that been a successful test, North Korea might think it would have a strengthened hand in negotiations. Now that that test has apparently, according to our sources, been a failure, is that likely to stiffen the resolve of the Bush administration, if you will, in its now negotiating in diplomacy posture with North Korea?
ENSOR: Well I can tell you one thing, it certainly pleases and relieves the intelligence officers and the military officers who are so closely watching this test. If North Korea had successfully launched this missile and it had gone many thousands of miles and approached U.S. territory, we would have had a full-blown crisis on our hands right now, John.
As it is, obviously sighs of relief on the part of those who have to defend the country. As far as the policymakers are concerned, hard to say really how they're going to read this. Clearly there's going to be a great deal of anger on the part of Japan. And probably also the United States at this rather provocative series of actions by North Korea. But after all, that's what the North Koreans apparently want. They want to get attention. Well, they've got it -- John.
KING: That is one thing we can say with certainty. If they wanted attention, they do have it. David Ensor, our national security correspondent. We will check back in with you.
We want to bring now though Kyra Phillips, our CNN anchor. Kyra joins us on the phone now. She's been talking about this with her sources at Norad -- Kyra.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, it's pretty interesting John, as this has continued to unfold. I was able to talk with my sources there at U.S. northern command at Norad and as you know, they are not only watching all of the activity here at the United States on the ground, but they are in control in watching air defense 100 percent.
And they have told me that they'd been monitoring North Korea and the activity there intensely for a couple of weeks. So today did not necessarily surprise them. They knew that something was up and that something could happen. And so today did not take them by surprise.
They did tell me today that the U.S. territory, that the United States was never threatened. That the U.S. was prepared to respond if indeed this was to become a threat. That systems were on alert. Of course they can't be specific about what kind of systems. But we can only imagine what the U.S. military has within northern command and Norad. But that their systems were on alert and they were going to use them, if necessary. If they were required. However, to this point, they haven't been. They have not had to utilize those systems.
Now, I did tell -- I was told just within the last five minutes, the United States right now talking with China, Russia, and Japan. We've been talking a lot about -- it'll be interesting to watch the Japanese, how the Japanese react. Now I'm being told the U.S. in communication with China, Russia, and Japan. All three of those countries, John, could have been threatened when these missiles were launched.
But at this point, the word from northern command and Norad is in two of my source's word, an act of a lunatic. Which I thought was very interesting. Also the words moronic were used. And that they are fully on alert and watching every move that North Korea makes. But at this point, U.S. territory was never threatened.
KING: So U.S. territory never threatened. Kyra, did they say anything at all about -- they believe, I assume, that this is a political objective, not a military objective in the region?
PHILLIPS: A great question, John. And that's what I said. Here we are, it's the 4th of July, you had the shuttle launch. What's the message here? And that's what they said to me. You hit it on the head. I mean they couldn't have picked a more interesting day.
Not only the shuttle launching but also the 4th of July. And it's very interesting, I guess, they were saying, too, within this week specifically, because of those, just the significance of 4th of July and also the fact that the shuttle was set for today, that everybody was manning the post.
And John, you know how it's set up at northern command and Norad, I mean it's unbelievable those joint operation centers and what they can monitor on satellites and the big screens. And they have been there specifically within the last three days, watching everything through the day and through the night. And so they were prepared for what happened today. Not necessarily surprised.
KING: And they can see, Kyra, through spy planes, through satellite, and other technology, the launch of these missiles. The reports into us are that the longer-range missile, the Taepodong-2, failed shortly after the launch. Did they share any information with you? Obviously that is the most sensitive intelligence announced.
PHILLIPS: They told me 50 seconds John.
KING: Fifty seconds?
PHILLIPS: They told me 50 seconds. When that third missile was launched and yes they did confirm it was that Taepodong missile and it came from the area that they had been monitoring and they had been watching. 50 seconds after it went airborne it died out.
KING: Kyra Phillips joining us on the phone. Kyra we will check back in with you as well. Kyra Phillips one of many here at CNN, CNN resources, correspondents, producers and others checking in with us on this breaking news story. Also helping us track it all and keeping a close eye is our Jack Cafferty, he joins us from New York. Jack?
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: North Korea, John is asking for trouble by launching these missiles today. Maybe it's time to give them some. Repeated warnings that the launches would be seen as provocative, have fallen on deaf ears. Kim Jong-Il has given little or no indication to the rest of the world that he plans to be in any way cooperative in reducing the nuclear threat from his country.
What's next from these people? Testing a missile that's armed with a warhead? With every passing day, North Korea's nuclear weapons program gets bigger not smaller. More weapons, more powerful weapons, a greater capacity to deliver those weapons. And the stronger they become, the more bellicose and belligerent that weird little dude that runs the country becomes. At what point does the rest of the world say that's enough?
Here's the question -- how should the international community respond to North Korea? E-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile. You know, punks like this don't go away, John. They're the bully on the block and until somebody smacks them upside the head, they just keep on keeping on. Remember that guy named Adolph Hitler, and all of the negotiating and all of the talking and all of the posturing that went in to trying to deal with him?
KING: Provocative talk from Jack Cafferty. Following the provocation from North Korea. I would guess that the e-mail responses will be quite interesting.
And we want to continue to try to get more reaction on the telephone with us here at CNN, Congressman Curt Weldon, representative, Republican of Pennsylvania. He's the vice chair of the House Armed Services Committee. He joins us from Glen Mills, Pennsylvania, where he is home of course for the July 4th holiday here, Independence Day in the United States. Congressman Weldon, any briefings at all as yet? Or is it too early for that and what do you make of this?
REP. CURT WELDON (R-PA), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well no there's no briefings yet but I have monitored the North Korean situation since 1994 when we sent the wrong signal by entering into a framework that we had no way to monitor and basically see if they were in fact cheating which they were. In '95, then a CIA issued a national intelligence estimate 9519 and said don't worry, America.
There will be no threat from a missile attack for at least 15 years. We in the congress, Democrats and Republicans oppose that and that was the only time the CIA had to reverse itself. And thank goodness that they had to do that. Because in 1998, we saw the first launch of a Taepodong, when the North Koreans successfully launched a three-stage missile, over Japan's territory. The test didn't go to completion, but it was tracked by our EGIS systems. And The CIA later estimated that if it had gone to a completion, it would have been able to hit the outer reaches of the U.S. with a light payload.
Many of us then thought that we should move to protect ourselves, which allowed us to in 1998, pass my bill into law HR-4. Which declared that our policy to establish a missile defense system. That system is now in place. It's not at the level that we want it to be, but at least today we have a kind of capability that can show the North Koreans that we will shoot down a missile attempt aimed at one of our allies or one of our territories.
KING: Well, congressman, let me jump in. What should the president of the United States do tonight and tomorrow, though, now that Kim Jung-Il has staged, what you have to considered to be a provocation?
WELDON: Yes I think this is basically a political provocation. I have been to North Korea twice. I led the only two delegations into the country. I sat across the table from the Kim Gyguang (ph), their lead negotiator for a total of 15 hours. In fact I had an invitation that I received one month ago to take the third delegation back into North Korea from August the 1st to the 5th. I consulted with the White House and they suggested I not go on this trip because of the possibility of the launch that we've now seen today.
Even though I think this is absolutely provocative. The last thing we need to do is to rush to some kind of offensive military action. Because a war with North Korea would not be a war like any that we have seen in recent years. They have the fourth largest army in the world. They have thousands of missiles that are all set up along the DMZ to Seoul, and they also have capabilities on their ground forces. I think we have to engage them. We have to get China off the dead center.
China has not been doing what it needs to do to back North Korea down and we have to get Russia off dead center. North Korea's looking to try to use this, in my opinion, as a political gesture. To try to use it for leverage. I don't think we should respond in an offensive military way.
But I think we ought to certainly engage the members of the Security Council, the neighbors of North Korea and get the Chinese and the Russians to get much more serious than they have been. Letting North Korea know that we can't tolerate this kind of arrogance. But I also believe we need to engage them.
KING: When you say can't tolerate this kind of arrogance, what signal though would it send if the president came forward and said I'm prepared to engage you, I'm prepared to put more incentives on the table. Would not that then send a signal, not only to North Korea but to Iran and perhaps any other regime out there? That the way to get the attention of the United States and to get incentives from the United States, is to be provocative?
WELDON: Yes, we don't need to give incentives but we need to engage. You know, there is a six-party process. And I think there's more that we could be doing to enhance the resumption of the six-party talks. And we need to continue the tightening of the belt that we've been doing. We've taken some aggressive steps to shut down their financial flow. And the money packages that basically have harmed their economy and I think that's why you're seeing Kim Jong-Il take the position he's taken.
What I want to make sure we understand is this is not the time to launch into an offensive military action. Because again, I've had the briefing on what a war would look like with North Korea, and it would be a devastating event, that we would win in the end but it would be with a terrible loss of life in casualties, both to Americans and Koreans.
KING: You mentioned to get China off the dime, my words not yours. If the president of the United States were to pick up the phone to President Hu and say, at this moment Mr. Hu I need your help, do this, what would it be?
WELDON: Well I think China can shut down the North Korean economy in a heartbeat, because China is the primary trading partner of the north, they're the primary supplier of food and energy. China's been holding out because in the end, they want to trade for Taiwan and we won't trade for Taiwan. The Chinese need to play a more aggressive role, we need to be more aggressive with China, and we have tremendous economic leverage with the Chinese. And I think this will wake the Chinese up.
I don't think the Chinese expected Kim Jong-Il to do what he did today. And so I think you're going to see China come out with a much more aggressive public posture, but a lot more aggressive behind-the- scenes posture. And the same thing has to occur with Russia. They're the two big partners in the region, like the U.S. and Japan and South Korea. And all of us have to weigh in and let the North Koreans know this is unacceptable.
But again, this has been building up. This just didn't happen, this started in '94. In '95, the CIA misread what they were doing. In '98 the North Koreans launched a Taepodong. I mean this has been a continuation of events. So this is not just something that kind of came up on the radar screen. There are steps that we could have and should have taken back in the '90s and the early 2000's that we just didn't follow through on.
KING: Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and someone who has spent considerable time on the North Korea question. Congressman thank you for your time and your thoughts today. We may check back in with you as well as we get more information on this breaking news story.
WELDON: My pleasure, any time. Have a good day.
KING: Thank you sir, have a great day. I want to bring back into our conversation, security analyst Jim Walsh. He was listening as the congressman spoke. Jim, I understand that you have some disagreements with the approach advocated by Congressman Weldon. The floor is yours.
JIM WALSH, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: Well, I agree with the congressman that we should not be taking offensive military action or something that would provoke the North Koreans. And I agree that we need to have engagement. But the idea somehow that the agreed framework back in the 1990s is the cause of all these problems. Or that North Korea represents a direct immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, I think it is nothing but hype.
I think, one of the things that you'll see, as a consequence of this test, is not only will it have an impact on Japan and the politics there, it's going to have an impact on the domestic politics in the United States. And I think you'll see advocates of missile defense as the congressman has long been an advocate of missile defense, he and others are going to say look, look, this is why we need more missile defense.
Even though it's unclear that that's the real solution here. The real solution is a political solution to this problem. And, John, you've raised the issue of, does it take more incentives in order to get North Korea back to the table? I don't think the issue is the incentives with the North Koreans. When I have spoken to North Korean officials, what angers them is the very thing that congressman Weldon wants to do more of, which is to squeeze them economically.
I think as a matter of diplomacy, it's very hard to slap someone in the face and then say, let's sit down and have dinner and discuss our differences. By taking an aggressive posture in which we are trying to squeeze them, they naturally respond by wanting to pull away from the negotiation table. So I think we have to ask ourselves, what's most important? And the answer is we have to find a way to get rid of that nuclear weapons program and that's where our focus ought to be.
KING: Just a bit off point of today's developments, but I want to go back to this point because several of the people we have talked to raised this very point, this very debate you raised. Going back to the Clinton administration posture and what was then called the agreed framework.
I know firsthand that the position of this president of the United States, George W. Bush and his vice president is that, while that deal might have looked great on paper that it had no verification, that you could not go in on a moment's notice and verify what the North Koreans were doing and the president believes that North Korea might have complied with the deal here, but was cheating over here. And there was no way to go in and verify.
And that has influenced his posture, not only when it comes to North Korea but in the Iran debate as well. Is the president wrong on that point? Were there tough enough verification proposals, in fact agreements in the Clinton deal? WALSH: It's a great question, John. I would say two things about it. One, that agreed framework froze North Korea's bomb program for 10 years. They did not build one bomb in that entire period of time. Now we do not have the agreed framework.
And what has happed under the Bush administration during this period, North Korea has built is it four, six, eight, 12 nuclear weapons? So for all the complains about the agreed framework, the bottom line is that it worked. North Korea did not build more nuclear weapons under the agreed framework.
The second point I would make is I would encourage viewers to go online. You can look up the agreed framework. It's about a page and a half, three pages long. Easy to read. And then in it, you'll see, both sides. The U.S. and North Korea, promise to do a bunch of things. We promise to, engage them economically. To move towards normalized relations. To open up our relationship. They promise to do certain things. And frankly, I think there's myth-making on both sides.
The U.S. didn't do a lot to hold up its end of the bargain. The North Koreans also violated their understanding by hedging and looking at that highly enriched uranium program, sort of going behind the door of the program to talk to the Pakistanis. So there's plenty of reason to complain on both sides. But the bottom line is, during the agreed framework, North Korea built no additional nuclear weapons. And that is in stark contrast to what we face today.
KING: Jim Walsh joining us from Boston. Jim thank you for your time. We'll check back in with you as well. A debate over the history of North Korea and of course today, a debate over what to do now that North Korea has test-fired at least three missiles, perhaps four according to some reports. And to our viewers in the United States and around the world, more on this breaking news story after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Breaking news, this Independence Day here in the United States. North Korea starting a provocation with the United States and others in its region, Asia, by launching at least three missiles today. We want to try to get the latest now on what military sources are saying about this from our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. Barbara?
STARR: John, military sources confirming to CNN, three missile launches. They say one of them they do believe was the Taepodong-2, the long-range ballistic missile North Korea had been threatening to launch.
Military sources telling CNN that that missile failed very quickly, in the words of a military official. Very quickly after launch. The U.S. military had to take no action to shoot it down. Because it had already failed so quickly. Although clearly, the Bush administration, the military was prepared to use its interceptors to shoot it down if it came to that. The other two missiles, John, we are told by our sources were scud-c no-dong type variance. These are shorter range North Korean missiles that they have a fairly significant inventory on. But there's something very interesting about those two launches as well, John. Our sources telling us that both those missiles impacted into the Sea of Japan, but one of them landing closer to Japan, one of them landing closer to Russia. Not inside Russian territorial waters but closer to Russia than Russia might have wished, if it even knows yet how close that missile came, but some landing in the Sea of Japan.
Military officials looking at that very interestingly. And trying to figure out what that means, in terms of North Korean capabilities to aim their missiles and shoot them where they intend them to go. So perhaps at the end of the day, none of these three missiles exactly went where North Korea intended -- John.
KING: And Barbara, as that intelligence assessment continues, help us understand, to the best of your knowledge, about the military's response. This, not something I would assume, that would generate a military reaction. But is there any beefing up of resources, a show of strength if you will in the region to raise the flag?
STARR: I have just spoken to officials about that within the last few minutes. They say at this point, there are no plans to raise any U.S. military profile, for example, out in the pacific at this point. They keep a number of ships and aircraft with missile capabilities and intelligence gathering on standby out in the western pacific at all times.
They feel they have enough there to continue to keep an eye on North Korea. But it should be -- it should be understood that in terms of the US.' ballistic missile defense capability, those interceptors, that sun of Star Wars, if you will, the missiles that the U.S. have in Alaska and in California, that it could launch if it wanted to try and shoot down an incoming North Korean missile.
Although none of that was used today. All of it was in place. All of it was activated. All of it was ready to go, if it had come to that, if President Bush had given that order. The military had all of the pieces in place. But at the end of the day, John, it didn't come down to that because that longer-range Taepodong 2 failed very quickly after launch.
Perhaps the only question left -- one of the only questions left at this point is whether the North Koreans took some action themselves. They call it range destruct, if they were concerned it was going to come down on their own territory or something. They may have taken the action to destroy it when they saw it go bad. But that type of assessment really has not been made yet by the Bush administration, John.
KING: Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. Barbara, we'll check back in with you as developments warrant. Joining us now to discuss this breaking news further John Pike, he's one of the world's leading experts on defense space and intelligence policy. He's with globalsecurity.org.
Also CNN security analyst Richard Falkenrath who, Richard I'll begin with you by noting that when you worked in the Bush administration prior to 9/11 on the national security council, North Korea was in your portfolio. What do you make of this? What is Kim Jong-Il trying to do?
RICHARD FALKENRATH, SECURITY ANALYST: Well it's very hard to figure out what Kim Jong-Il's trying to do ever. It's one of the worst areas of intelligence for us. We have very poor insight into what goes on into his mind. My sense is for the Taepodong, they needed to test it for technical reasons. This missile had been in development for a long time, there hadn't been a complete flight test and they felt the need to test it. The other two I think they didn't need to test. They knew the nodong worked fairly well, that part was certainly a provocation to the U.S.
And as best we can figure what goes on in the mind of this dictator, he's probably trying to send a signal, a warning to the rest of the world. Don't pressure me. Don't threaten us. He's also probably trying to justify his continued repression internally by maintaining the aura of threat that North Korea feels from the rest the world.
KING: Well John, if that is the case, if the idea was don't threaten me to intimidate or potentially bully the world a bit to get back to the bargaining table in a way to his liking and to the test of what North Korea has said is its premier new long-range missile failed, what happens now?
JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, I think we're going to have to get a better idea exactly what happened in this test. I mean let's pose a couple of questions that I'm still waiting for answers. I'm intrigued by the timeline. That it supposedly failed 50 seconds into the launch. Well, that's basically the point at which the first stage would burn out.
The second stage, if it was fueled, would have ignited. Maybe it was a failure. Maybe the first stage was the only one that was fueled. I'm also going to be interested to see what direction they were firing the thing. Were they firing it as though it would have been a satellite launch that would go in one direction? Or were they firing it onto a trajectory that might have gone to the United States? That would be sending it in a very different direction.
But I think you're right. If you're looking at what he's doing, number one, he wants to be unpredictable. Number two, he wants to negotiate in crisis. In that negotiation, he wants to see what he can get, see if he can shake something loose. I think we have to also keep in mind that under their ideology, the whole world ought to be looking to him for inspiration and leadership.
And until recently, people had not been paying attention to him. They'd been paying attention to Ahmadinejad in Iran or Chavez down in Venezuela. But Kim Jong-Il, he hadn't been getting on TV. Well, Kim Jong-Il is on TV and he likes to get on TV. KING: And quickly, what are the technical means available now? You say you have these questions obviously the United States has the world's premier spy satellites. What other technical means are there, that I assume at this very moment, are trying to answer those questions?
PIKE: Right, I think the U.S. government already knows what the launch estimates was. They're going to have a preliminary assessment about whether the first stage failed or whether it simply burned out. I think over the next 12, 36 hours, some of that information's going to come out. Going to be very interesting to see what direction was the big missile fired. On a satellite trajectory, or on one that would have been more threatening.
KING: John Pike, Richard Falkenrath, I'm going to ask you both to stand by, to continue our analysis of this breaking news center. Missile firings by North Korea. Stay with us please. Our viewers here in the United States and around the world, but for now though, we're going to take a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
