When North Korea launched a “satellite” earlier this month, two narratives emerged: the dominant one — that the launch was an overall failure — and a dissident one, that this nonetheless represented an important leap in the Koreans’ ability to threaten the U.S. with long-range missiles. The truth is not mutually exclusive to either narrative, but there’s a clear difference in emphasis.
A New York Times article illustrates why this divide in analysis came through: the old debate over missile defense hasn’t gone away. Money graf:
In this case, the hidden agendas centered on the Pentagon’s antimissile program, which has consumed some $100 billion in the last decade and still costs about $10 billion a year. Analysts pooh-poohing the North Korean launch want that money for arms control, while the ringers of alarm bells want to save the program from administration budget cutters.
…regardless of the fact that “missile defense” works about as well as North Korea’s missiles of course.