Missiles Discovered on North Korean Ship

Here’s the cite: Missiles Discovered on North Korean Ship

It seems that a North Korean ship was discovered smuggling SCUD missiles into the Middle East under a false manifest.

The U.S. is saying it doesn’t think the missiles were headed to Iraq, but possibly to Yemen.

So, what are the repercussions of this? Is this a major escalation of the situation? Does this cause major problems with North Korea?

I heard they were SCUD-like missiles and that they were headed to Yemen, but that was not necessarily their final destination.

The Actors Guild says they are probably props being sent in for an upcoming movie to be shot in Yemen. :wink:

Here’s a little more detail: Spain, U.S. Seize N. Korean Missiles
The ship was boarded and seized while 600 miles out to sea by Spanish (!) and U.S. forces. This could cause us problems with Yemen, North Korea and, because of the way it was handled, Spain.

Well, it apparently has no bearing on the Iraq situation, but it may prove that N. Korea is a greater threat than Iraq is. I don’t expect that the US will do much about it. Bush does not have the courage to challenge N.K.

kniz, I don’t get your “actor’s guild” remark. What are you referring to?

Considering that Kim Jong-il has admitted to abducting Japanese citizens, is committing genocide, keeps sending armed ships into Japanese waters and “tests” missiles by shooting them over Japan, I’d say you’re right.

Surely if Bush doesn’t do anything (assuming, of course, that the destination isn’t legitimate) it proves the ‘it’s only for the oil’ argument?

Don’t know if that would “prove” the oil arguement per say. Just another in a long list of indicators

China Guy, indicators of what?

What I mean, is that if this is true, if North Korea is ‘smuggling’ missiles into Yemen, a hive of al-Qaeda activity (notwithstanding the infrastructure needed to launch such a missle, making it an unlikely terrorist weapon), then that makes North Korea clearly more dangerous than Iraq. If Bush does nothing about the threat posed by North Korea, but is willing to go to war against Iraq for a lesser threat, what difference is there but for the fact that Iraq has huge oil reserves? NK can get away with it because they pose less of an economic threat to the US?

N.

Why should we care? Yemen is no threat to us or anyone else. There is, so far as I am aware, no intenational prohibition on exporting missiles to other countries.

Quite a few critics (including some on this board) carped that the “Axis of Evil” wasn’t an “axis”, because the countries constituted unrelated threats.

minty green: I’m no expert, but I think there are international treaties prohibiting or severely restricting missile exports. And surely you’re not limiting your consideration of the “threat” to the government of Yemen, disregarding the al Qaeda elements operating in Yemen?
december: Please illustrate how these N.K. missiles show any sort of axis-like connection between the governments of North Korea, Iraq and Iran?

These blasted things are so common, even a junk dealer can axquire one–and get arrested for owning it!

See link–

http://scholieren.nrc.nl/extra/engels/2002/132.shtml

I read kniz’s remark about the Actor’s Guild as a subtle poke at the theater surrounding the siezure.

This DC Times article on the same subject claims more or less that the vessel’s cargo was known to US intelligence authorities since its departure from North Korea, and that the Times itself had publically reported the nature of the ship’s cargo on 2 December. While I don’t consider this paper to be the fount of all wisdom, I can buy the article’s argument that the vessel may have been seized to minimize the political fallout related to a supposed ally and host for US military forces receiving these weapons from a card-carrying Axis of Evil™ member, or worse yet, allowing them to be delivered to a third party via Yemen.

I see the most serious political consequences as falling on Yemen, especially if it turns out that the ultimate consignee was anything other than the Yemeni government. North Korea, not so much. We’ve already written them off as an outlaw state.

Not my area of expertise here, so if somebody has a cite for that, I’d be happy to consider it.

Well, damn, I guess we need to just force the Yemeni army to disarm entirely, if there are al Qaeda guys in Yemen. Saudi Arabia too. Who knew we were arming bin Laden every time we ship the Saudis new F-16s?

xeno, ya know I love ya, but al Qaeda has never shown the slightest interest in Scud missiles. Totally not their style.

It links North Korea to threats in the Middle East. Critics had claimed that the threats were unconnected, because the countries are on different continents.

Well, they did use anti-aircraft missiles to try to shoot down the Israeli airliner.

Perhaps they are branching out.

At any rate, I find it a little disquieting that the idea that al-Queda would want Scuds is dismissed out of hand because it isn’t “their style”.

I’ve been whooshed. The original quote specifically excluded the government of Yemen, yet you assert that the government needs to be disarmed. Where did that come from?

Regards,
Shodan

The missiles were going to the government of Yemen and the Yemeni army. Yemen has now said they want them back. Barring any violation of international law, they should be returned, too.

And I laugh at the idea of al Qaeda wanting Scuds because it is silly, not to mention entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Comparing a Scud to a SA-7 is like comparing a pea shooter to a bazooka. Besides, even if you can fit the thing in the cave, where is Osama going to sleep?

Crap. minty g, I failed to read the articles from msnbc and the Washington Times. I was under the impression from a news blast I’d heard on a morning radio show that the missiles were not going to the Yemeni gov’t. Obviously, that was untrue, and makes my question to you rather pointless.

december: Cite, please for that particular criticism? To my knowledge, criticism of the “Axis of Evil” characterization has been focused on a) the fact that those three governments are not known to have strong cooperative ties, and b) it’s a goofy, embarassing, juvenile term for a PotUS to use.