[USFK Forums] No security threat in N. Korea missile test: analysts [Reuters]

[C. Y. Lee]

Uploaded by C. Y. Lee on Friday, March 10, 2006

No security threat in N.Korea missile test: analysts

By Jon HerskovitzThu Mar 9, 8:20 AM ET

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea's test-firing of two short-range missiles was more about checking performance than rattling sabers during a stalemate in talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, analysts said on Thursday.

They said Wednesday's test did not constitute a major threat to stability and if Pyongyang had wanted to send a strong signal it could have wheeled out far bigger missiles.

U.S. officials said the missile test proved that North Korea's nuclear programs posed a threat to the region, but neighbors China and South Korea were muted in their reactions.

"We have taken note of the relevant reports," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a news conference, without commenting further on Pyongyang's move which comes amid a stalemate in six-party talks to dismantle its nuclear programs.

The tests also came not long after a rare meeting between U.S. and North Korean officials in New York, where they discussed a U.S. crackdown on Pyongyang's assets, which the North wants ended before it will return to the nuclear talks.

North Korea fired the two short-range missiles from its east coast and they probably dropped into the sea about 100 km (60 miles) away, the South Korean daily JoongAng Ilbo reported on Thursday, citing a government source.

Initial reports said the tests were over a shorter distance elsewhere and just on land. A senior Bush administration official said the two missiles did not leave North Korean territory.

The missiles had a range of about 120 km and were similar to a missile the North test-fired in May 2005. That was a modified Soviet surface-to-surface missile, the newspaper said.

"The government sees this as testing to boost missile performance," the source was quoted as saying. Japan played down the tests, saying they did posed no threat to its security.

South Korea's new chief envoy to the nuclear talks, Chun Yung-woo, said he did not have enough details on the missile tests.

"Some missiles violate international regulations and some do not. I heard these missiles were not in violation of MTCR rules," Chun said, referring to the Missile Technology Control Regime, an international missile non-proliferation treaty.

Chun was speaking to reporters in Beijing where he arrived for discussions on how to resume the nuclear talks grouping the two Koreas, Japan, the United States, Russia and host China. The six last met in November.

Despite the tests, South Korea, which is within range of the missiles, let North Korean ships into harbor to load fertilizer aid to help the North's spring planting.

WHY DIDN'T THEY GO BALLISTIC?

Analysts said the North ran periodic tests of its shorter range missiles and the greatest threat to regional stability was its nascent arsenal of intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles, which might eventually be used for nuclear weapons.

"If the North Koreans really wanted to send a signal, why not do a ballistic missile test?" Daniel Pinkston, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California, said by telephone.

Proliferation experts believe North Korea is still some time away from building a nuclear warhead small enough to be mounted on a missile. The accuracy of its mid-range missiles was also suspect while its long-range missiles are believed to be in development and not yet launched.

"We attach significance to it (the test) because it has the words 'North Korea' and 'missile'," Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS think tank based in Hawaii, said by telephone.

"The North Koreans would be happy for us to attach a political message but I am not sure that was their intention."

(With additional reporting by Jack Kim and Tokyo bureau)

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


(END)