Why shouldn't Kim Jong Il fire his missile?

There's an air of unreality about the imminent North Korean missile test. In theory, it's very, very bad indeed: crazed Oriental Despot to let off large bomb. But no one can quite bring themselves to get in a stew over it. Hence the bored and anti-climactic utterances by US government spokespersons. The most upset that Hillary Clinton managed to get was when she opined that the firing of an ICBM by the mad bad Kim Jong Il would be "very unhelpful". Unhelpful? Unhelpful? Unhelpful is when Bill sits reading Hustler while Hillary is in the kitchen unpacking a big box of groceries. Surely an act of warmongering by the world's last Stalinist dictatorship can at least be classified as "rude"?

Partly, of course, it's good sense not to get into a rhetorical shomben match with the Norks - when it comes to inventive vituperation, they cannot be bested, and there's nothing to be gained from trying. But I sense a lack of seriousness about the whole thing too. Everyone knows that they should be in a panic, that an appearance of panic would be seemly somehow. But they recognise in their hearts that it's not justified.

I may, I suppose, be proved spectacularly wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this missile launch is insignificant in itself - and I set out some of my reasoning here. And then, when you come to think of it, why shouldn't Kim Jong Il fire a rocket anyway, any time he wants?

It's sneeringly assumed that the Norks are is simply lying when they claim that what's being planned is the launch of a satellite-carrying civilian rocket, not a missile. But in 1998, this was perfectly true. The North fired a long range rocket which arced over Japan; its purpose, they explained, was to put into orbit a satellite which would beam down patriotic hymns, including the 'Song of Kim Jong Il'. Everyone else chuckled sarcastically and denounced it as irresponsible warmongering - and then weeks later "US intelligence analysts" quietly admitted that a small satellite had indeed been attached to the rocket (although it didn't make it out of the atmosphere).

The good-old Nodong Sinmun (Worker's Daily) went into a good deal of detail about this, and convincingly put in its place the argument that because the rocket had passed over Japan it was in some way a violation of Japanese sovereignty. "They cite as evidence the fact that our artificial satellite's flight was above Japan's territorial sky and through the airspace of the Tsugaru Strait," the Nodong Sinmun observed.

It is true that our artificial satellite flew over Japan's territorial sky and passed through the airspace of the Tsugaru Strait. However, it cannot be a "threat to Japan's security" or a "violation of its sovereign right".

Let us ask the Japanese authorities: Don't you know what the territorial sky is, or an international strait, or the legal position of the airspace above such international straits?

As for the territorial sky, its height has not yet been internationally defined and the only general standard - that the height of the territorial sky should be extended only to a height appropriate to guarantee the security of each country - applies. So, over the past 100 years, the height of the territorial sky has been internationally recognized between 40 to 50 km. . . . Recently, however, some argued that the height of the territorial sky should be about 100 km, on the grounds that the flight altitude of ballistic missiles launched by many countries nowadays is generally within 100 km and that some of the satellites orbit more or less 100 km from the earth. As a result, nowadays, about 100 km is regarded as the height of territorial sky. No nation claims higher territorial sky, nor is it recognized. When it flew over the Japanese archipelago, our artificial satellite's flying altitude was over 200 km.

Now, Japan alleges this as a violation of its territorial sky. What an absurd allegation it is!

It goes on:

The Japanese authorities say that we had not informed them of our plan to launch a satellite in advance and, therefore, this constitutes a "violation of international law." Japan has launched dozens of satellites so far and has it ever informed us of any single one? If we are to follow Japan's logic, it has violated international law dozens of times. The Japanese authorities claim to be reasonable and they have never mentioned this. Why? Nothing could be more absurd. Japan must remember this clearly: no regulations in general international law, or any space laws for that matter, mention the requirement for countries that launch satellite to make information available in advance.

But suppose the North was to launch a missile - a straightforward, unembarrassed, honest to goodness ICBM? Provided, of course, that it didn't misfire and fall on someone's head - would that be so wrong? The "security" of the "West" has been guaranteed by such weapons for the past 60 years, or so we are reassured.

It violates United Nations sanctions perhaps - but then disregarding the opinion of the UN is not a monopoly of the Axis of Evil. We may not feel comfortable with it, but it seems to me that in answer to the North Korean question, 'Why shouldn't we possess and test missiles for our own defence?', the rest of the missile-possessing, missile-testing world has no more persuasive answer than: "Because we don't like you."