Hot Launch Hot Take

Aaron Stein 0:02

Hot Tick Pod.

Jeffrey Lewis 0:07

You are listening to the Arms Control Wonk Podcast, the leading podcast on arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. I'm Jeffrey Lewis, the founding publisher of the Arms Control Wonk blog, a scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, and a person who hates Kim Jong-un.

Aaron 0:26

And I'm Aaron Stein, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils for Fake Career Research for the Middle East. And I'm a person who's learned a lot about Kim Jong-un this past year.

Jeffrey 0:36

Why are you doing this to me, Kim Jong-un? I'm so respectful. I believe in your missiles. You don't need to keep launching them. I believe.

Aaron 0:50

The computer models say you're right. For listeners, it is Friday, 127 p.m. East Coast time. So it's what, 1027 West Coast time? Correctamundo. When did they launch this thing?

Jeffrey 1:05

Oh, I noticed it at about 8.30. It was midnight North Korea, a little bit. I noticed it a little bit before midnight North Korea time, so I think they probably launched it. So this is officially an emergency slash hot take pod. Hot take pod.

Aaron 1:20

We're going with what we know. We're going with what we know. We're going to draw conclusions, guys.

Jeffrey 1:26

Everybody wants to know. I mean, I got Twitter. Twitter is blowing up on me. Yes, North Korea has launched a missile. I think the big, you know, as always, Ankit Panda has the data first. Friend of the pod. Yep, friend of the pod. We're big fans of his. You know, so this is a f*** of a missile.

We don't know exactly what it was. We think it probably was the Hwasong-14 again. We haven't seen any pictures yet, although there are reports Kim Jong-un was there, which means we will get pictures. I'm hoping he does the smooth criminal again. I'm hoping he keeps smoking around fueled missiles.

Aaron 1:59

Me too. Hopefully one of them goes out so we can solve our problem.

Jeffrey 2:03

Yeah. But... This one flew for 47 minutes, according to Ankit. Jeez. And it reached an apogee in excess of 3,700 kilometers, and it went more than 1,000 kilometers downrange, which means this thing could certainly have gone 10,000 kilometers, depending on exactly where you're aiming, because it gets a little bump from the rotation of the Earth.

Aaron 2:36

So let's back up for listeners who don't know what some of that stuff means. Why do we care that it went 47 minutes?

Jeffrey 2:46

Well, I care because of his personal vindication.

Aaron 2:50

Well, for listeners who maybe haven't picked up on the last pod, go back and check it out where we talk about the last pod about the Hwasong-14 because there was debate about the range, about how far it could go. And would it only hit Alaska or did it bring certain targets in the continental lower 48 into play here?

Jeffrey 3:09

Right. So, you know, we've been modeling all of North Korea's missiles. And so we've been making measurements of them, figure out their size and their mass. And we've been analyzing where the weld lines are to know what kind of fuel they use. And we've been looking at the engine configuration. And Melissa and I separately for different missiles have measured how quickly the missile accelerates.

So we know how powerful the engine is. And so we've put all that all those numbers together. And people don't like them.

Aaron 3:38

It flies a long way.

Jeffrey 3:40

Because our numbers all showed that the missiles could fly much further, both than the North Koreans had demonstrated, but also than I think than people sort of accept. And to do that, right, for the missiles to do what we imagined or what we saw them doing, there had to be a kind of tremendous series of advances, I guess, or a tremendous disinformation campaign, right?

Because... You know, we figure that the engine's really good. We know the propellant type, but it's the right propellant type. And we think the airframe is pretty light. And so these are all technological advances North Koreans have made in the past few years. And so not everybody thinks we're right. And one of the big things after the July 4th ICBM launch is...

I wrote an article for the Daily Beast in which I said... Yes, they've demonstrated a missile that can travel sort of 7,000 kilometers, right, can hit Alaska. But we're also modeling it. And based on the computer simulations, which are anchored in how big it is, how much fuel it has, how powerful the engine is, it should be able to do a lot more than that.

And I got to say, the reaction was not universally positive. We kept saying they can only hit Alaska. We dared them and... This is what you get.

Aaron 5:00

Right. So that brings us sort of to why we're having the hot tank pod, because a 47 minute flight time at those numbers. So a range of a thousand with an apogee at thirty seven hundred kilometers says that it's a lot more than Alaska.

Jeffrey 5:15

Yeah. So, you know, again, this is minimum demonstrated range. This is not as far as the missile can fly. They're probably cutting the engines a second early. Maybe this is the maximum they can do, but you don't know. We're still playing around with our models. But the rough figure of merit, the North Koreans released a statement prior to this, sort of in June, where they said an ICBM test is coming, and they kind of implied the ICBM would be able to hit New York, which is 10,400 kilometers away.

David Wright's already run the numbers, and he's going to do a blog post, and we'll put up a thing in the show notes. His initial estimate is, depending on which way you aim, because the rotation of the Earth adds distance, right? This demonstrated anywhere between 9,900 kilometers to 10,600 kilometers, right? So it can definitely hit L.A. It falls just a little.

Little bit short of Chicago, and I follow the John Schilling rule, which is if your computer simulation shows that the missile falls 100 kilometers short of an important target, it's probably your computer simulation that's wrong, right? Yeah, I mean, let's go. You know, like, they would have just, you know, like, it's possible they're up against a hard engineering limit, but they probably would have made the missile just yay bigger. Yeah.

Or the payload yay lighter. And it falls fairly short of New York and D.C. But those are estimates derived from what we just saw. And that doesn't mean that we've seen the full capability of the missile. And also, you know, there are issues like trajectory. You can get more range if you optimize your trajectory. But then you also have choices like, you know, am I flying the trajectory in such a way that's going to put too much stress on the airframe and the missile will break?

So, you know, there just isn't... There's a little bit of judgment involved. And so, you know, kind of my step away from this is the North Koreans implied it could go 10,400 kilometers. We ran the computer models and said, yeah, like that's within the range of possibility. I wouldn't exclude that. And everybody still insisted on saying it was designed for Alaska.

And I guess we've dared the North Koreans and now they've shown us that, yeah, it can do more.

Aaron 7:45

I mean, in that respect... It sort of confirms what we talked about on the last North Korea podcast is that they're building a hell of a missile and it's time to take it seriously and to stop sort of trying to push it away. Like either you can deal with it through China or, I mean, I think there's even talk of decapitation strike now or that they can't hit the lower 48.

It's like, yes, they can. And it's just time to move on from that.

Jeffrey 8:08

Well, you know, this is... The thing I kind of don't understand about the way we're approaching this problem. And I guess that's kind of why the This American Life episode existed.

Aaron 8:17

Yeah. Shout out to them for repping the pod.

Jeffrey 8:25

Yeah, which we haven't mentioned on the podcast.

Aaron 8:26

Yeah, that was pretty awesome. That was pretty awesome.

Jeffrey 8:29

So by the way, the whole time I'm talking to David Kestenbaum, I'm like, hey, you're really smart. Like, you're really hanging on the technical stuff. And then somebody pointed out he has a PhD in physics. Like, oh, yeah, of course. Oh, interesting. That's why he was able... It's like, God, you're pretty technical for a reporter. Like, yeah, because he's way more technical than I'll ever be.

All right. So at every turn, people come up with reasons to not believe that the North Koreans can do what they're doing. And I understand wanting to be skeptical and be critical. Like, that's a good instinct. But... You also have to be open to data. Like, like when the North Koreans pose with machine tools, really fancy computer numerically controlled machine tools at their missile plant, you have to accept that that means they might be making iso grid airframes.

Like you can't say like, well, I've never seen them do it. So therefore they can't do it because there is a first time for everything and you will constantly be surprised. And so we have tried to be both skeptical and critical, but also like, A little bit anticipatory of what might be next so that we're not constantly caught behind.

And I just feel like we have this constant problem where people, I think the answer is we don't know what to do about the problem. So we come up with reasons to imagine it's not a problem.

Aaron 9:53

Where did they launch this one from? I mean, because I think that builds into the data points that you were just talking about.

Jeffrey 9:57

So then that's the other part of the story that I think is really, I mean, the two big notable things I take away from this are one, the range. Yeah. And we don't know what kind of payload and, you know, we haven't seen pictures yet. So, you know, things could change. But, you know, it seems like they've helped demonstrate that, yes, they can hit the continental United States and we should stop daring them.

But then the second thing is reports are it was launched from an unusual location in the heart of the country that we'd never seen before. And that, you know, we know what time it was launched. It was launched in the dead of night. And I think that is a response to those stories that we saw the missile launch or they saw the missile erected 70 minutes prior to its launch.

And people are like, why didn't we blow it up? Why didn't we kill Kim Jong-un? And I think the North Korean response is like, if you're going to talk like that, we're going to show you that you can't find us.

Aaron 10:48

Yeah, I mean that's what I wanted to tease out is this looked more like an – what I mean by operational is like this is how they would actually use it. It would be launched from a place that we might not necessarily think that they would launch it from or we've never seen evidence that they'd launch it from.

And they can do it at any time of the day.

Jeffrey 11:05

Right. What did Josh Pollack tell Aaron Maeda, who's one of my favorite defense reporters? He used the phrase ballistic missile operating area, BMOA. Right, it was ICBM BMOA. Like a regional deployment location. Right. I mean, I think the point, though, there is that the whole country could be the source of launches. And since the missile is mobile, you know, like, well, maybe we'll find all the bases.

Maybe we won't. I don't know what to say anymore, Jeffrey.

Aaron 11:38

Okay.

Jeffrey 11:39

I really don't. I do. I do. Right. Like we I think we have consistently had this idea that the North Koreans are a joke and that we don't really have to give them anything. And then we don't let you know that they you know, we walked away from the agreed framework and abandoned efforts to negotiate a missile deal because we thought if we just strong armed them a little more, we'd get a better deal.

You know, it was the it was the repeal and replace of the 1990s. You know, if you just want it bad enough, it'll magically happen for you. And, like, people were wrong about that. Like, they were just wrong. Like, the North Koreans didn't get strong-armed. Like, they just basically said, screw you, and they built nuclear weapons, and now they've built an ICBM.

And you know what's next? They're going to test a thermonuclear weapon.

Aaron 12:26

Yeah, we're getting there.

Jeffrey 12:27

You know, and so we just... Like, yes, we think they're a joke. They don't think they're a joke. And these systems are designed to show us that they're the ones who are right and that the joke is on us.

Aaron 12:42

And so, you know, like, it stinks. Like, I get it.

Jeffrey 12:45

It's a terrible government. It treats its citizens really badly. It's a mafioso state that shakes down its neighbors. Like, it's a really unappealing government. But, like, what... You're not going to invade it. People keep talking about preventive war. The time to launch a preventive war is before they have the nuclear-armed ICBM. Right. You don't do it after because then it's just a plain old nuclear war.

It's not preventive. And we have to accept that they have nuclear weapons and they have the ability to target us. I saw General Dunford said it was unimaginable that they could target Denver. And to me, he sounded like Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride saying, inconceivable. And Mandy Patinkin is like, this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's not unimaginable. It's reality and we have to accept it. It's not only imaginable, it's modelable.

Aaron 13:42

I got your computer model right here. What's the next stage for this? I mean, as we wrap up here. I mean, that was the hot take right there, right? But, like, let's game that a little bit more. What's the next step for them?

Jeffrey 13:52

Because they're going to go there. I mean, they haven't stopped. I don't know what order they do this in, right? But they're going to test a thermonuclear weapon. They keep talking about how this thing has a heavy payload. They have previously talked about their standardized warhead for nuclear weapons being compact. I mean, they don't use compact, but I think that's actually the proper English word we should use and forget their choices.

A heavy warhead is not compact. So, you know, they're talking about a bigger warhead. And the only reason you would do that, I think, is if you go to a thermonuclear weapon. So I think that's That's coming up you know i mean there may be some technical reasons they can't get there quite yet often first thermonuclear weapons tests don't work but you know like so did you know often icpm first tests don't work and like hey surprise So a thermonuclear weapon, that's a very good choice.

You know, the other thing that I worry about, which I don't I don't think they're going to do this, but like we keep saying the reentry vehicle doesn't work. The reentry vehicle doesn't work. The reentry vehicle doesn't work. Like, I am terrified. You know, we did that to the Chinese and I'm terrified that the North Koreans are going to do what the Chinese did, which is say, oh, oh, really?

OK, well, we'll put a nuclear weapon on a missile and then we will fire it. And then we will all agree that the re-entry vehicle works. Are we good? And after that, with the Chinese, we were like, yeah, yeah, yeah, we're good. You don't need to do that again. It's like, okay, thanks. I worry about that. Do you want to do one last hot take for this quick episode?

Because I got to piece it. So users in the Slack channel have posted a Yonhap statement where the South Korean military referred to this as an advanced ICBM class missile. Advanced ICBM class missile? You want to spitball that? What does that mean? I mean, I've got some things that fall under advanced, and we know some pictures of things they haven't tested, but I'm pretty sure I'll eat a pair of socks if it's a canistered missile.

You know what? No, I am not offering to eat pairs of socks when it comes to North Korean technology advancement. They're not bad at this. If it's a canistered missile, that would be bad. Yeah, if it's a canistered missile, we're going to do like another pod, at least another like five minute podcast that's just what's going on now.

Could have been a better second stage. Yeah, like, I think a better second stage or, like, an advanced payload would make sense. Could have been a little kick motor third stage that acts like a post-boost vehicle. Oh, man, if it's a post-boost vehicle, I think that'd be a very realistic and reasonable use of the term advanced also.

I mean, God help us if it's a solid-fueled ICBM. Oh, that... I think it's too early for that, because I haven't... It's too early for that. That... That'll come. That's the dessert course. We're still... We're at one of these multi-course tasting restaurants.

Aaron 17:01

We're on course three here. We're building into the main...

Jeffrey 17:04

I went to Aquavit back in the day in New York when Aquavit was at its height. We're about... I don't know. We shouldn't speculate too much on advanced ICBM, but I think the point is the North Koreans are not bad at this, and we should stop Acting like they are and we should stop pretending we have more leverage than we do because we don't.

But the last thing I'll say is for years I've been having this argument with people who say, well, if we admit that the North Koreans can do this, it'll alarm the South Koreans and the Japanese. And I have always said, you know what's really going to fucking alarm them? When we lie to them by telling them they can't and then they do.

They know what's going on.

Aaron 17:42

I mean, denying agency to these advanced countries as if they can't do their own models like we can is absurd. They know what's going on. They absolutely know what's going on. Whether or not they have policy options to deal with it just like we do with something else. We are coming to the point – we're at the point as you make it over and over again.

And this is really the heart of the issue is that nobody wants to admit that American policy has failed and that there is a tenth nuclear power on earth and it happens to be the sort of weirdest, most – Awful regime on earth. And we couldn't stop them. And so we continue to sort of, to quote, we continue to play around with ourselves, to suggest sort of nonsensical things about hitting it while it's being fueled or decapitation strikes.

Separating Kim from the regime was something that came out, was something that came out this week about policy options. It's like, Dude, they just fired a f***ing ICBM from the center of their country that could hit the targets in the lower 48. We have to accept this. Otherwise, we're just not grappling with the problem. We're dealing in fantasy.

Jeffrey 18:56

Yeah, it's funny. I was going to say, right, I'm the one who used to tease them that they were drunk on Juche, but like, actually, we're the ones drunk on MAGA. They've got the more accurate assessment of the balance of power at the moment.

Aaron 19:07

It's just, it's flabbergasting to me, you know, this level of self-delusion. You know, because I deal in the Middle East world, and I'm sorry, I'm off on a rant. You know, I get these Middle East experts who come to me because they know I do the podcast, and they're like, North Korea really can't hit the eastern seaboard, right?

It's like, no, they can't. They can't. It can. And it's just time that we figure this out.

Jeffrey 19:27

Yeah. Well, the last thing I would say, and I don't mean to be unkind, but I think one of the reasons we have trouble admitting this is that, you know, our discourse is dominated by the people who made the mistakes. Well, yes. I mean, it's horrible. And so it's very hard for them to admit that they suck.

Aaron 19:44

Like... Well, there's a tendency to kick the can down the road because it's politically beneficial to say, oh, if somebody could deal with it in five years, that way we don't have to deal with it. And...

Jeffrey 19:54

We ran out of road. So like, I mean, you know, the person to listen to is somebody like Mark Fitzpatrick. Right. And I will forever condemn the Obama administration for not making Mark Fitzpatrick an important person. Right. Here is a career Foreign Service officer who absolutely could have been an assistant secretary or an undersecretary. He knows far more about these issues than almost anyone in the world.

Maybe than anyone in the world. He is a model of good judgment. He is calm. He is a wonderful presence. And the Obama administration wanted nothing to do with him. You know? And it's like, well, okay, so, you know, like, here's the one guy who is consistently right about all this stuff. You know, who has always been, you know, and so the problem is, Fitzpatrick's not a not you know I mean he is a former government official but he's not you know one of the like high muckety mucks and so his you know like you you listen to the people who made the mistakes because they had the big job but like you should listen to the people who were right don't listen to the people who were wrong even if even if they had a fancy title that's a hot take huh Yeah.

And by the way, I shouldn't say that. It's not to indict all the people in the Obama administration because there are a lot of people there who I really like, who are really good. So, you know, the problem, it's going to be the classic problem of all the people I really like who are really good are going to think I'm like trashing them because they're like the self-aware people.

Right? And actually the people who I am thinking of, it's never going to occur to them that they're them. So if you're thinking I'm talking about you, chances are I'm not. Hey, Aaron. Hey, Aaron. You're supposed to say Euros? Yes. Hey, Aaron. Hey, yes. Thank you for joining me. Always a pleasure. And thank you for listening.