North Korea Says US Missile Shield Plans Risk ‘Nuclear War' in Space
North Korea slammed on Tuesday US President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" missile shield plan as a "very dangerous" threat that could spark nuclear war in space, state media said.
Trump announced new details and initial funding for the missile shield system last week, calling it "very important for the success and even survival of our country".
The initiative faces significant technical and political challenges, according to analysts, and could come at a hefty price tag.
In a statement shared by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Pyongyang's foreign ministry slammed the "very dangerous 'threatening initiative' aimed at threatening the strategic security of the nuclear weapons states".
The United States is "hell-bent on the moves to militarize outer space," the foreign ministry said.
"The US plan for building a new missile defense system is the root cause of sparking off global nuclear and space arms race by stimulating the security concerns of nuclear weapons states and turning... outer space into a potential nuclear war field," it added.
Washington -- Seoul's key security ally -- has in recent years ramped up joint military exercises and increased the presence of strategic US assets, such as an aircraft carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine, in the region to deter the North.
Pyongyang has repeatedly declared itself an "irreversible" nuclear weapons state and routinely denounces joint US-South Korea drills as rehearsals for invasion.
Hong Min, a senior analyst at the Korea Institute for National Unification, told AFP that Pyongyang saw Trump's "Golden Dome" as a threat.
"The North's strong reaction suggests it views the Golden Dome as capable of significantly weakening the effectiveness of its nuclear arsenal, including its ICBMs," he said.
"If the US completes its new missile defense program, the North will be forced to develop alternative means to counter or penetrate it," he added.
- China, Russia modernizing weapons -
China has also expressed strong concerns about Washington's Golden Dome plan, accusing the United States of undermining global stability.
Beijing is closing the gap with Washington when it comes to ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow is modernizing its intercontinental-range missile systems and developing advanced precision strike missiles, according to a 2022 Pentagon review.
The Kremlin has said Trump's initiative would require consultations with Russia but was otherwise a "sovereign matter" for the United States, softening its tone after also previously slamming the idea as destabilizing.
The plan's Golden Dome name stems from Israel's Iron Dome air defense system, which has intercepted thousands of short-range rockets and other projectiles since it went into operation in 2011.
The United States faces various missile threats from adversaries, but they differ significantly from the short-range weapons that Israel's Iron Dome is designed to counter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
How Covering Your Face Became a Constitutional Matter: Mask Debate Tests Free Speech Rights
Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings–drawing scorn from him. 'Masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons–a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza, where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech, but to restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks. Conversely, he said First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an unresolved First Amendment question that has yet to be addressed by the US Supreme Court, but the court has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment. 'Few of these laws have been challenged in court,' Stone said. 'And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression.' Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies. Federal agents wearing masks. The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government, Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. US Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain-clothed officers, and masks in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr
As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation. The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond. The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy. To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program? Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it. The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction. Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond? Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands. Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way. Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to? It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities. Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world? Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation. Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue. Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict? Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers. Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine. Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence. As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse. Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent? There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime. Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years. Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing. Short link : Post Views: 10
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Putin Tells Iranian FM There Was no Justification for US Attack
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Iran's foreign minister on Monday there was no justification for the US bombing of his country and that Moscow was trying to help the Iranian people. Putin hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow two days after US President Donald Trump sent US bomber planes to strike Iran's three main nuclear sites. "The absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran has no basis and no justification," Putin told Araghchi in televised comments. "For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people," he added. "I am very glad that you are in Moscow today, this will give us the opportunity to discuss all these pressing issues and think together about how we could get out of today's situation." Araghchi told Putin that Iran was conducting legitimate self-defense, and thanked Russia for condemning the US actions. He conveyed best wishes to Putin from Iran's supreme leader and president. "Russia is today on the right side of history and international law," said Araghchi. It was unclear, however, what Russia might do to support Iran, an important ally with which Putin signed a strategic cooperation treaty in January. That agreement did not include a mutual defense clause. Before Saturday's US strikes, Moscow had warned that US military intervention could destabilize the entire region and plunge it into the "abyss". Asked what Russia was ready to do to help Tehran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "It all depends on what Iran needs". He said the fact that Moscow had offered to mediate in the crisis was itself a form of support. Peskov condemned the US attacks. "An increase in the number of participants in this conflict is happening - or rather, has happened. A new spiral of escalation of tension in the region," Peskov told reporters. "And, of course, we condemn this and express regret in this regard, deep regret. In addition, of course, it remains to be seen what happened to (Iran's) nuclear facilities, whether there is a radiation hazard." Peskov said Trump had not told Putin in detail about the planned strikes in advance. "There was no detailed information. The topic of Iran itself was repeatedly discussed by the presidents during their most recent conversations, certain proposals were voiced by Russia, but there was no direct detailed information about this," he said.
