Latest news with #CenterforStrategic&InternationalStudies
USA Today
24-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Does the US need a Golden Dome air defense system?
On a special episode (first released on June 23, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: How might the Golden Dome missile defense system proposed by President Donald Trump protect the US from missile strikes? Tom Karako with the Center for Strategic & International Studies joins The Excerpt to discuss air defense systems. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello and welcome to USA TODAY's The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. In May, President Donald Trump shared his vision for protecting the US from the threat of nuclear strikes by drones and ballistic cruise and hypersonic missiles. The idea, a Golden Dome, which would cover the country with three layers of air defenses following the launch of missiles in Iran. The idea of having a robust defense system here at home is getting more attention. Here to share his insight on missile defense and nuclear deterrence is Tom Karako, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thanks for joining me, Tom. Tom Karako: Great to be with you. Dana Taylor: What is the architecture of a national missile defensive system or Golden Dome look like? Would this be primarily space-based technology or is there more to it than that? Tom Karako: Yeah, there's certainly more to it than that. And again, it's important to keep in mind that we have a handful of systems already in place today to defend the United States against, especially the rogue state ICBM threat in particular. That's called the ground-based midcourse defense system. But you specifically asked about the architecture, so I think it's important to recognize there that there's a number of sensors, there's space sensors, there's lots of ground-based radars, and the very beginning of the kill chain here is the first, the detection of a missile launch. The tracking of that, the figuring out, is this a threat and where is it going, that's primarily a sensor and computing a problem. Then figuring out, okay, we have certain interceptors, how does one create a fire control solution? How does one tell them where to go at what moment to be at a particular point in space to kill this thing? And then of course, we have the ground-based interceptors up in Alaska that are there to kill this. But as you note, this is not just about the rogue state ballistic missile threat. As we've seen in Ukraine and the Middle East, there's all kinds of other threats. So I would say that the Golden Dome Initiative that was in that executive order from January is long overdue. These are weapons of choice, as we see again on a daily and weekly basis in these various global conflicts, and so the cruise missiles, the forthcoming, and really the present, hypersonic missile threats and other things perhaps space to ground fires, lots of these things in addition to the UAVs that are plentiful and proliferated, all of these things are threats that we have become accustomed to seeing over there. But these are things that are going to unfortunately be coming to a theater near you to us in our homeland as well. And so the operation Spiderweb thing that Ukraine did, putting things into Russia, we have to imagine it's not going to take a whole lot of imagination to imagine those kinds of attacks applied to, for instance, our military bases or our ports, our airfields, things like that. So everybody has to look up. We can't take air superiority for granted anymore and so it's going to be a spectrum air and missile defense capabilities to contend with this spectrum of air and missile threats. Dana Taylor: I was going to ask, are there specific current or projected threats that justify the need for a Golden Dome missile shield? Tom Karako: I think we see them in the headlines every day. The very robust, say Russian and Chinese, first and foremost, cruise missile threats, ballistic missile threats. Why are we concerned about them? Why can't we just rely upon nuclear deterrents? The answer is the availability of non-nuclear strategic attack, the kinds of things that a country might think they can get away with short of a nuclear reprisal. That's a big problem now and again, the last several national defense strategies for both the Biden Administration and the previous Trump Administration identified China and Russia as our principle challenges. We're not dealing with the rogue states first and foremost. Counterterrorism is not our top priority at the moment. It is fundamentally the major peer, near peer threats from the bigs, that we have to worry about. And again, missiles are weapons of choice. They're not a boutique problem, they're not a future problem. It's very much a today problem. Dana Taylor: The idea of mutually assured destruction rose during the Cold War between the US and Russia. The theory that should either side strike first, they too would be annihilated proved to be effective. How much of a deterrent is American might? Tom Karako: The paradigm that I think serious defense planners, again on a bipartisan basis, really over the past decade plus, have come to is that while it's important to have that deterrence by punishment, whether nuclear punishment or otherwise, that the threat again of that non-nuclear strategic attack is so significant based on the supply and the demand globally for these precision guided munitions that can have very serious effects without any nuclear weapons at all. That problem set also requires the prospect of deterrence by denial, which is to say, denying an adversary their objectives, not just blustering or threatening to respond if they should attack. Dana Taylor: We've recently seen the limitations of Israel's Iron Dome. Some Iranian missiles have successfully pierced Israel's air defense systems. Can you break down how the Iron Dome works, what went wrong, and if the proposed Golden Dome can mitigate those risks? Tom Karako: So I think you're probably talking about the many, many hundreds of missiles that have been coming in to Israel in the first instance over the past week, but also of course, those really big attacks on April 14 and in October of 2024. No weapons system is perfect, no weapons system is non-finite in its capacity in its numbers. So I think the beginning of wisdom here is to recognize that there will always be a leaker. That's just in the nature of things. There's no perfect tactical aircraft. There's no perfect sidearm that is not going to fail occasionally. What I would say actually is that in the 400 or so ballistic missiles that have been fired in the last week here in June of 2025, it's been remarkably good shooting. It's been astonishing to me that so few have gotten through. Then likewise on April 14 of last year, when something like 550 plus projectiles coming at Israel simultaneously from multiple trajectories from Yemen, and from Iran, from other places, UAVs, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles all designed to arrive simultaneously. It was, I think, nothing short of a miracle that as many were intercepted last year as they were. So what I would say is that Israel's layered defense, of which the Iron Dome system is just one layer, in fact, the lowest layer, most of the big things are either going to be caught by the family of interceptors, they are 2 Arrow 3 or David's Sling for some of the medium range stuff. The Iron Dome system, per se, is not going to be engaging the long-range threats. It's also important to note that the United States has been engaged in the Red Sea operations and in the direct defense of Israel. The United States has two THAAD batteries deployed in Israel right now, and they have been busy. They have been busy shooting down a number of these threats so it's a very much a combined operation between the United States and Israel in terms of taking out these longer range threats. But you're right. There was a couple weeks ago, I think, at least one major missile that got through before the current kerfuffle. And again, I see that as primarily in the nature of things. Nothing is perfect. The good news is, of course, that we're talking about the non-nuclear attack as opposed to nuclear attack and so that's, I think, is important to put that in context. Dana Taylor: To what impact could the creation of a missile shield have on our relationships with both our allies and adversaries or their takeaways here from Israel's Iron Dome? Tom Karako: Yeah. Here again, I think it's important to contrast, especially the caricatures of the Cold War about, let's just say, Reagan's aspirations on SDI, Strategic Defense Initiative. In that context, there were some allies that were hypothesizing, well, what if the United States comes up with some impenetrable shield? What's their interest and commitment going to be on an extended deterrence level for coming to the aid of say, the European allies? Well, there's a couple of problems with that. One is nothing is perfect, and I think those kind of assumptions get way ahead of the capability gap. What I would say is, in practice, the prospect of even a limited degree of protection, say for the US homeland is first and foremost bolstering American and allied broad defense and deterrence commitments. If you're able to be blackmailed, if you're able to be coerced, if you're able to have your military forces decapitated because you don't have any deterrence by denial act of missile defenses, that's a problem. hat's a problem for your deterrence and extended deterrence commitments globally. This is why the demand signal for active air missile defense, this is no longer an American idiosyncrasy by any means, putting in addition to the Russian and the Chinese significant investments here. Just take a look at what all of our allies are doing. There's a massive rush for air missile defense capability in Europe led by Germany called the Skyshield Initiative, but to Poland, Sweden, the Swiss, and probably the United Kingdom here soon as well. So it's not an American idiosyncrasy. Everybody kind of realizes that you need to have some kind of defense, albeit limited, to slow things down, because ultimately it contributes to deterrence. It contributes to nuclear deterrence, it contributes to conventional deterrence so that the bad guys don't get an idea pop into their head, that they can come up with something like a fait accompli and get away with it very easily. So it raises the threshold for aggression by making it harder for them to do something at a lower level. Dana Taylor: As you know, the President has set an ambitious timeline. Trump has said the system, "...should be fully operational before the end of my term," which would be in 2029. Is that realistic? Tom Karako: Here's where I am going to make a comparison to SDI and to Reagan, which was that Reagan said that this is something that might not be accomplished in his lifetime. And yay verily, we are over 40 years later now, and it has yielded very significant results, but it has taken time. So I think that it's important to see the Golden Dome Initiative, not as a program, not as a system, but rather as an umbrella for a lot of initiatives and a lot of efforts to get after these various weapons of choice. And so it's going to be an ongoing thing. You'll probably see them snap the chalk line and say at the end of the term that there's some kind of defensive capability. Some things can be accomplished in the near term, I think they will be. But there's going to be a lot of things that are going to take longer, and that's okay. Dana Taylor: I want to turn now to the price tag. In May, a report from the Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a bare-bones version capable of intercepting one or two ballistic missiles would cost at least $161 billion over two decades. How much might a fully realized Golden Dome cost, and do you see this as a good allocation of available defense spending? Tom Karako: So I think it's real important to understand what the Congressional Budget Office report did and what it didn't do. They were not tasked to cost the Golden Dome Initiative at all. What they were asked to do by Congress was to update a previous estimate of what a particular set of assumptions for space based interceptors might be. And so that is a particular component, a particular piece of a potential future architecture for Golden Dome, and there's a number of different assumptions in terms of what the interceptors cost on that. The only variable that they updated on that was the launch cost. The good news is that launch costs have come down dramatically for space. That's why you see thousands of Starlink satellites and lots of other companies, Amazon, et cetera, that have thousands of satellites and so that's the number, that's the scope that one might need for a space-based interceptor layer, an overlayer, as it were for the other things. But I think it's real important to understand what those numbers are and what they're not, and that that's probably not the best guide to what we're going to be spending on this. The president said in his Oval Office remarks... He threw out the number 175 billion, but the question is over how many years? That could be over 10 years. If it was over five years, that would be 35 billion a year and it just depends on what is being counted and what is not. So I think it's real important to take a look at what Congress is actually authorizing and appropriating and not kind of, I would say, pie-in-the-sky numbers that don't necessarily correspond with reality. The good news is you can do a lot for $25, $35 billion a year. $25 billion is the number that's in the reconciliation bill working its way through Congress. And you can do a lot for that to address all these disparate threats, and frankly, we should be. Dana Taylor: Finally, we live in a world with increasing threats running the gamut from pandemics to foreign disinformation campaigns. Do you have any concerns that a Golden Dome may give Americans a false sense of security? Tom Karako: First of all, we're not going to be able to defend everything, and it's going to require senior military and political leaders to be upfront about the fact that the threat is so wicked. The threat is so difficult that you're not going to have a perfect Astrodome to defend everything. And it's about picking and having a preferential defense. Think about the Super Bowl. Every year, the Super Bowl gets a special bubble of air defense over it. And I think what I would say is that where we're heading is a handful domes over a handful of places persistent throughout the year as opposed to just for the big game. So keeping expectations in check is going to be important, and again, as we see on a daily and weekly basis in the headlines, these are weapons of choice. These are what our adversaries and frankly we reach for first in a conflict is long-range standoff capability. And so I think understanding that is going to help to make sure that we don't have a false sense of security because it's a tough world. Dana Taylor: It's good to have you on The Excerpt, Tom. Thank you. Tom Karako: Thank you. Dana Taylor: Thanks for our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistant. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts at Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor, Taylor Wilson, be back tomorrow morning with another episode of USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
North Korea warship launch failure: Four North Korean officials arrested over failed warship launch in front of Kim Jong Un, face imminent execution
Why is Kim Jong Un so furious? ADVERTISEMENT How did the launch go so wrong? ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT What could happen to the arrested officials? FAQs A North Korean warship launch went very wrong, and now high-ranking officials are paying the price. The destroyer tipped over and sank on its first trip, which made Kim Jong Un very failed warship launch that damaged a newly built destroyer led to the arrest of four North Korean officials. People see the disaster as a big step back for North Korea's plans to modernize its lives of those four North Korean officials detained for the disastrous destroyer launch are in grave after the nameless 5,000-ton destroyer's disastrous launch, which caused the ship to capsize onto its side and damage its hull, the arrests were to North Korean experts, Kim Jong Un could even kill four officials who were detained. "I would say there's a very good chance they'd be executed," stated Joseph S. Bermudez, a North Korean defense analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, as quoted in a report by Business rapidity with which state-run North Korean media reported on the incident that damaged its newest warship and identified the officials involved was one startling feature. The announcements' high level of publicity implies Kim is "very upset," Bermudez said the Choe Hyon-class destroyer advances Kim's goal of turning North Korea's coastal navy into a blue-water fleet. He called that project's setback a "slap in the face" for is thought that the mechanism that rolled the ship into the water broke down, causing the aft portion of the ship to lie in the water and flood while the bow of the ship became stuck on the chief engineer of the shipyard, the head of the hull construction workshop, and a deputy manager for administrative affairs were all held directly responsible for the arrests, which were reported by state-run on the list was Ri Hyong Son, who was also arrested while serving as the vice director of the Korean Workers' Party Central Committee's Munitions Industry was one of two next-generation Choe Hyon-class destroyers. Bermudez told BI that the eastern Chongjin Shipyard, which rarely builds large warships, built the Korea tried a sideways launch instead of drydock or a slipway, which the workers may not have been used to with a larger vessel, he to satellite photos taken on Monday, there was evidence of a dredging operation at the harbor entrance, and the ship's bow was still stuck on the what will happen to the officials named is unknown. Although the legal system can impose a variety of penalties, "due process" is frequently a deterrent. North Korea put two unidentified nuclear power plant construction researchers to death in January for not finishing their project and raising the bar for technology. Their less experienced coworkers were taken to what is thought to be a political prison the penalty, one thing is certain that the officials' families will also be impacted. According to the reasoning of the North Korean legal system, convictions are "because of a significant family flaw," which implies that the family must be dealt with for three believe it is very likely, particularly given Kim Jong Un's swift and public outrage.A botched sideways launch tilted and flooded the vessel, most likely due to inadequate preparation at an inexperienced shipyard.
Economic Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Four North Korean officials arrested over failed warship launch in front of Kim Jong Un, face imminent execution
A North Korean warship launch ended in disaster, leading to the arrest of four officials and potentially severe consequences, including execution, due to Kim Jong Un's fury. The destroyer capsized during its initial launch, damaging the hull and hindering North Korea's naval modernization plans. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Why is Kim Jong Un so furious? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads How did the launch go so wrong? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What could happen to the arrested officials? FAQs A North Korean warship launch went very wrong, and now high-ranking officials are paying the price. The destroyer tipped over and sank on its first trip, which made Kim Jong Un very failed warship launch that damaged a newly built destroyer led to the arrest of four North Korean officials. People see the disaster as a big step back for North Korea's plans to modernize its lives of those four North Korean officials detained for the disastrous destroyer launch are in grave after the nameless 5,000-ton destroyer's disastrous launch, which caused the ship to capsize onto its side and damage its hull, the arrests were to North Korean experts, Kim Jong Un could even kill four officials who were detained. "I would say there's a very good chance they'd be executed," stated Joseph S. Bermudez, a North Korean defense analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, as quoted in a report by Business rapidity with which state-run North Korean media reported on the incident that damaged its newest warship and identified the officials involved was one startling feature. The announcements' high level of publicity implies Kim is "very upset," Bermudez said the Choe Hyon-class destroyer advances Kim's goal of turning North Korea's coastal navy into a blue-water fleet. He called that project's setback a "slap in the face" for is thought that the mechanism that rolled the ship into the water broke down, causing the aft portion of the ship to lie in the water and flood while the bow of the ship became stuck on the chief engineer of the shipyard, the head of the hull construction workshop, and a deputy manager for administrative affairs were all held directly responsible for the arrests, which were reported by state-run on the list was Ri Hyong Son, who was also arrested while serving as the vice director of the Korean Workers' Party Central Committee's Munitions Industry was one of two next-generation Choe Hyon-class destroyers. Bermudez told BI that the eastern Chongjin Shipyard, which rarely builds large warships, built the Korea tried a sideways launch instead of drydock or a slipway, which the workers may not have been used to with a larger vessel, he to satellite photos taken on Monday, there was evidence of a dredging operation at the harbor entrance, and the ship's bow was still stuck on the what will happen to the officials named is unknown. Although the legal system can impose a variety of penalties, "due process" is frequently a deterrent. North Korea put two unidentified nuclear power plant construction researchers to death in January for not finishing their project and raising the bar for technology. Their less experienced coworkers were taken to what is thought to be a political prison the penalty, one thing is certain that the officials' families will also be impacted. According to the reasoning of the North Korean legal system, convictions are "because of a significant family flaw," which implies that the family must be dealt with for three believe it is very likely, particularly given Kim Jong Un's swift and public outrage.A botched sideways launch tilted and flooded the vessel, most likely due to inadequate preparation at an inexperienced shipyard.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Four North Korean officials arrested over failed warship launch in front of Kim Jong Un, face imminent execution
Why is Kim Jong Un so furious? Live Events How did the launch go so wrong? What could happen to the arrested officials? FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A North Korean warship launch went very wrong, and now high-ranking officials are paying the price. The destroyer tipped over and sank on its first trip, which made Kim Jong Un very failed warship launch that damaged a newly built destroyer led to the arrest of four North Korean officials. People see the disaster as a big step back for North Korea's plans to modernize its lives of those four North Korean officials detained for the disastrous destroyer launch are in grave after the nameless 5,000-ton destroyer's disastrous launch, which caused the ship to capsize onto its side and damage its hull, the arrests were to North Korean experts, Kim Jong Un could even kill four officials who were detained. "I would say there's a very good chance they'd be executed," stated Joseph S. Bermudez, a North Korean defense analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, as quoted in a report by Business rapidity with which state-run North Korean media reported on the incident that damaged its newest warship and identified the officials involved was one startling feature. The announcements' high level of publicity implies Kim is "very upset," Bermudez said the Choe Hyon-class destroyer advances Kim's goal of turning North Korea's coastal navy into a blue-water fleet. He called that project's setback a "slap in the face" for is thought that the mechanism that rolled the ship into the water broke down, causing the aft portion of the ship to lie in the water and flood while the bow of the ship became stuck on the chief engineer of the shipyard, the head of the hull construction workshop, and a deputy manager for administrative affairs were all held directly responsible for the arrests, which were reported by state-run on the list was Ri Hyong Son, who was also arrested while serving as the vice director of the Korean Workers' Party Central Committee's Munitions Industry was one of two next-generation Choe Hyon-class destroyers. Bermudez told BI that the eastern Chongjin Shipyard, which rarely builds large warships, built the Korea tried a sideways launch instead of drydock or a slipway, which the workers may not have been used to with a larger vessel, he to satellite photos taken on Monday, there was evidence of a dredging operation at the harbor entrance, and the ship's bow was still stuck on the what will happen to the officials named is unknown. Although the legal system can impose a variety of penalties, "due process" is frequently a deterrent. North Korea put two unidentified nuclear power plant construction researchers to death in January for not finishing their project and raising the bar for technology. Their less experienced coworkers were taken to what is thought to be a political prison the penalty, one thing is certain that the officials' families will also be impacted. According to the reasoning of the North Korean legal system, convictions are "because of a significant family flaw," which implies that the family must be dealt with for three believe it is very likely, particularly given Kim Jong Un's swift and public outrage.A botched sideways launch tilted and flooded the vessel, most likely due to inadequate preparation at an inexperienced shipyard.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The 4 North Korean officials arrested over a botched destroyer launch are in mortal danger
North Korea has arrested four officials in connection with a botched warship launch. State media reaction to the incident signals Kim Jong Un's fury at the disaster. Experts say the officials face severe — possibly fatal — consequences. Four officials detained after a North Korean destroyer was badly damaged on the day of its ceremonial launch into the water face potentially fatal consequences at the hands of Kim Jong Un, North Korean experts told Business Insider. "I would say there's a very good chance they'd be executed," Joseph S. Bermudez, an analyst in North Korean defense at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, said. One striking aspect was the speed at which state-controlled North Korean media publicized the incident that damaged its newest warship, and also named the officials. The highly public nature of the announcements suggests Kim is "very upset," Bermudez added. The arrests came within days of the botched launch of the nameless 5,000-ton destroyer, which saw the ship topple onto its side and its hull damaged. It's believed the mechanism that rolled the ship into the water malfunctioned, leaving the ship's bow stuck on the pier while its aft section lying in the water and flooded. State-run outlets announced the arrests, placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the shipyard's chief engineer, the head of the hull construction workshop, and a deputy manager for administrative affairs. At the top of the list: Ri Hyong Son, a vice director of the Munitions Industry Department of the Korean Workers' Party Central Committee, who was also arrested. The warship was one of two next-generation Choe Hyon-class destroyers. The first, the titular Choe Hyon, launched a month ago to great fanfare at Nampo Harbor on the peninsula's western coast. However, the second was constructed at the eastern Chongjin Shipyard, which does not typically produce large warships, Bermudez told BI. Rather than launching it in drydock or from a slipway, North Korea attempted a sideways launch — something the workers may not have been well-practiced at with a larger vessel, he said. When it came to the bigger ship, "all of a sudden, you're starting to use a piece that hasn't been used in years," he said. As of Monday, satellite images showed that the bow of the ship still stuck on the pier, with evidence of a dredging operation at the harbor entrance. Following the launch, state media put the "responsible" officials on blast. This was a choice. "Normally these things are done quietly," Bermudez said. Within hours of the disaster, the Pyongyang Times reported Kim denouncing it at length, calling it a "criminal act" that "could not be tolerated." Multiple detailed updates to the recovery operation have followed. The Choe Hyon-class destroyer is a step towards a major ambition of Kim's: transforming North Korea's primarily coastal navy into a blue-water fleet, Bermudez said. A setback to that project is a "slap in the face" for Kim, he added. Although the full capabilities of the new ship are not yet known, its sister ship the Choe Hyon — the first in the class — wields modern capabilities like an air defence system and vertically launched missiles. State media has claimed it can carry nuclear-capable missiles — in which case, the program is "very much interlinked with North Korea's broader nuclear ambitions," according to Edward Howell, an expert on North Korean politics at the University of Oxford. "The fact that it failed so miserably was pretty embarrassing for Kim," who is "captivated" by developing naval power, Bruce Bennett, a North Korea-focused defense analyst at the RAND think tank, told BI. It's even more galling in the wake of large-scale South Korean naval drills in the Yellow Sea earlier this month — which showcased its naval power after the launch of the first Choe Hyon. And there was another reason to denounce the named officials: In terms of domestic politics, "it puts everybody on notice," Bermudez said. When big programs that really matter to Kim fail, "he's going to take retribution," he added. Although officials have now said the damage is not as bad as first assessed — something that BI could not independently verify — it's still going to be treated with utmost seriousness in order to "deal a telling blow to incautiousness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricist attitude prevailing in any field," state media declared. It's unclear exactly what will happen to the officials named. Various punishments are possible through the judicial system, but all too often, "'due process' is a bullet in the head," RAND's Bennett said. In January, North Korea executed two unnamed nuclear power plant construction researchers for failing to complete their project and improve technological standards, Daily NK reported. Their junior colleagues were transported to what is believed to be a political prison camp, the outlet reported. Regardless of what punishment is handed down, one thing is likely: it'll also hit the officials' families. In the logic of the North Korean justice system, convictions are "because of a significant family flaw," Bennett said. "Therefore three generations of the family need to be dealt with." That could mean the officials' spouses, parents, and even kids could be sent to grim prison camps — and could also be downgraded within the country's system of social hierarchy, Songbun. "We don't know what their fates will be," said Howell. "Their fates don't look to be very pleasant." "But crucially," he added, "this is going to make no impact on North Korea's broader quest for naval modernization, military modernization." Read the original article on Business Insider
