I think the D.P.R.K. is basically correct in this assessment. The U.S. does not need a Ballistic Missile Defence. The threat is so small and the expenditure on B.M.D. so massive that frankly it is an excuse to pump many more billions into the Pentagon despite the absence of a strategic threat.
Yes the D.P.R.K. has a point in terms of underlying nuclear doctrine. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the U.S. would prefer to be able to exercise a first-strike nuclear capability and by having B.M.D., it would make it more likely that the U.S. could achieve such a despicable action. America might believe a nuclear attack could be so decisive that a "weak" second-strike response could be deterred by missile defence.
This D.P.R.K. dispatch is also referring to the deployment of Aegis class, missile interceptors on ships and a Patriot system to Japan. One cannot, however, totally dismiss the need to react to the missile tests of July 4. Yet great powers should be able to exercise greater wisdom, restraint and effective diplomacy when dealing with a tiny, militarised, impoverished nation. The press release is accurate in suggesting that U.S. armament is a greater threat to international peace and stability than that of the D.P.R.K. It is accurate in depicting American desires for world hegemony. It is hardly alone in depicting American power as unrestrained and ruthless.
I am no fan of the D.P.R.K. in terms of either its domestic or external policies but the U.S. is to a large extent the cause of the D.P.R.K.'s external behaviour and statements. Recall that the chief complaint of the D.P.R.K. is the U.S. refusal to negotiate directly. This is something that the U.S. should be ashamed of resisting. Imagine our so-called enemy merely wanting to implement bilateral talks and the powerful U.S. saying as Mr Bush did recently, it feared such talks because they could not control them. Imagine that!
U.S. Moves to Deploy Interceptor Missiles under Fire
Pyongyang, July 11 (KCNA) — The United States is now hell bent on deploying interceptor missiles at strategic vantages. It is feverishly indoctrinating countries concerned with the rumor of "missile threat" to implement its scheme of interceptor missile deployment.
Minju Joson in a commentary Tuesday strips bare the desperate moves of the U.S. to bring into shape networks of missile defense system covering the whole globe including Asia-Pacific and European regions and cover up its real intention with the doctrine of "missile threat".
Noting that it is none other than the U.S. which is threatening other countries with massive nuclear and missile forces, the commentary goes on:
In crying over "missile threat" the U.S. seeks to conceal its sinister intention and, behind the curtain, create favorable climate and condition for implementing its strategy of world supremacy.
What the U.S. is after is to freely carry into action its preemptive strike strategy after setting up a colossal missile defense system at every strategic vantage and binding other countries hand and foot to neutralize their means of retaliation.
On the other hand, the U.S. is going to drag the world into vast military expenditures by giving rise to an arms race in such costly domain as missile development.
It considers that it can easily realize its dominationist ambition against other countries, if it attains such strategic goal through the deployment of interceptor missiles.
Scathingly exposed to the international community is the anti-peace, hegemonist colors of the U.S., which is bringing instability to the world and threatening peace, buoyed by ambition of world supremacy.
The U.S. should know that its confrontation policy and hegemonist ambition is a daydream which stands no chance of realization.