 | ||
 | Obama order worries free speech groups | |
| House GOP split on budget | |
| POTUS on the flooding | |
| Obama to CEOs: 'Show some restraint!' | |
| Open Mic weekend | |
| More Non Journalism From HuffPo | |
| Rep. King Unplugged | |
| NY-20 Poll: Murphy +4 | |
| Quote of the Day | |
| Obama Losing the Middle on His Budget? |
| A More Candid Report on China's Military | |
| Where's the Growth? | |
| Obama's Remarks on North Dakota Flooding | |
| Where's the Growth? | |
| Davos Capitalism: Adam Smith's Nightmare |
March 27, 2009
Admiral Mullen on the North Korea Missile Threat
The Situation RoomBLITZER: All right.
We're back with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. And Tom Foreman is here, as well.
Afghanistan a huge problem, but North Korea right now a huge problem for the United States, indeed, for a lot of our allies, as well. The suspected missile that they're getting ready to launch, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Admiral, show us what's going on.
ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, JOINTS CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Well, basically, what they have declared is a time from the 4th to the 8th of April. We've seen them -- and, Tom, you can bring up just one of those images -- we've seen them stack the boosters.
And -- and there's an expectation, even though that, you know, they -- the North Koreans say this is a satellite launch, what is of most concern to us is we believe it violates the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. You can see here -- here's the missile itself. Or here's -- I'm sorry...
(CROSSTALK)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... today.
MULLEN: Right.
FOREMAN: A lot of cloud cover, but that's the site.
MULLEN: And you can see the shadow right here that it casts.
BLITZER: But the question is this. They say, the North Koreans, Kim Jong Il, this is a missile, yes, but it's designed to launch a commercial satellite and poses no danger to anyone.
MULLEN: The United Nations Resolution 1718 says very clearly that the technology supporting the development of ballistic missiles is counter -- is against that resolution, no matter what their package is.
BLITZER: You believe they do have a satellite on that missile?
MULLEN: I actually believe that -- so far, that they intend to do this in the 4th to 8th. What concerns me is the guidance, the engineering, the engines, those are all identical to the kinds of capabilities you'd put on a ballistic missile.
FOREMAN: So you're saying it's -- it doesn't matter what's sitting on top of this missile here. The missile itself is actually the issue?
MULLEN: That's correct.
FOREMAN: The fact that what's sitting down here in this shadow, but we really can't tell what's sitting up top here. MULLEN: No, but the technology that -- that takes this potentially into space is the same technology...
BLITZER: And let's just set the scene for potentially what this means. You think this is a long-range missile, that intercontinental ballistic missile that could actually reach the United States?
MULLEN: Not -- this one, don't know for sure. Basically, what we're seeing, based on what's stacked so far, probably -- probably not. But this works towards the technology clearly that would be able to do that.
BLITZER: You have two options, as far as I can tell, if you wanted to use military options. You either launch a preemptive strike and just destroy that facility right now, which the U.S. certainly has that capability, or you wait until it takes off and then you blow it out of the sky.
MULLEN: Well, I think, actually, I'm not going to talk specifically about options and what we might do. Clearly, we -- we're concerned about what he's doing. I'm very concerned about his history of proliferation of this kind of technology.
Again, there are an awful lot of people who have spoken out strongly, diplomatically and internationally, against what he's doing. And I think it will be very disturbing to the region and -- and potentially with where this could go long term, he can develop a system that could actually target us.
BLITZER: I just want to point out that you are moving some ships, some destroyers into the Sea of Japan. Is that right?
MULLEN: There are certainly precautions that were taken. And I think I saw earlier today some of the ships that we're moving out of Japanese home ports...
BLITZER: U.S. ships?
MULLEN: United States ships.
BLITZER: Because the Japanese supposedly are moving ships, as well. And there's been some speculation they might decide to try to destroy that missile.
MULLEN: Well, each of the country's...
FOREMAN: The missile site's up here, right?
MULLEN: Correct. And so, you know, a launch here could, you know, very clearly go over Japan, which is out here. And, obviously, the Japanese are very concerned.
He's -- he's done this before. And, in fact, the one in 2006 failed, and -- and there was debris from that. And just the debris alone, you know, can be a threat to people in this area. FOREMAN: How technologically capable are the Japanese -- because they made some noise about this -- if they're sitting over here with a warship, what capability do they have to shoot down a missile launch from here?
MULLEN: We've -- we've looked at what the technology is that -- that the North Koreans are development -- developing, and we work very hard to be able to address that from an overall readiness perspective. But I'm not going to go into the details of our capabilities at this particular point in time.
BLITZER: I'm going to show our viewers -- Tom, if you could show us the U. S. , the United States and North Korea, these are thousands and thousands of miles away.
MULLEN: Right.
BLITZER: And the question has always been, do -- would the North Koreans have a capability of launching an intercontinental ballistic missile, potentially with a nuclear warhead, on U.S. soil, whether in Alaska or the West Coast of the United States?
MULLEN: This -- this missile, which he says he's going to launch here in a few days...
BLITZER: Show us.
MULLEN: ... is on -- is on the path to do exactly that, to get it in space and -- and, in fact, be able eventually, with the technology, to reach the United States and very specifically threaten us.
BLITZER: Show us a line of how...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... could potentially happen.
MULLEN: Yes, I mean, clearly, from here, you know, all the way over here would be one particular arc.
FOREMAN: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland?
MULLEN: Sure. I mean...
FOREMAN: It's that -- it's that capable?
BLITZER: They have that -- they have that range?
MULLEN: They don't have it -- no, they don't have it now that we know of, in terms of the missiles that we've seen, but you add to this missile that they're proving out right now, and they will have it. And your point, Wolf, is the package could be a nuclear weapon, which we know he has.
FOREMAN: Do they have the range so far to reach this far, Hawaii, Alaska?
MULLEN: In -- in some -- in some cases, yes, they could probably get -- they could probably get down to Hawaii.
FOREMAN: So this is not an impossible shot for what we believe they currently have and up here?
MULLEN: Well, within -- I mean, within range of what possibly could happen, you know, is the possibility, depending, obviously, what they do, that it could head for Hawaii.
BLITZER: One final question, political question. Kim Jong Il, the ruler over there, is he still in charge? Or are there others now who are really controlling what's going on, based on what the United States knows?
MULLEN: Everything I have seen is he's still in charge.
BLITZER: So he would make this decision if, in fact, as some have suggested, he would want to test the new American president?
MULLEN: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Kim Jong Il. Admiral, good luck to you.
MULLEN: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much for coming in.
MULLEN: Good to see you. Thanks.
