ROK Spy Agency Says MLRS Test By North Korea was Not Provocative

I wonder what the current ROK government would consider to be provocative from Pyongyang?:

This photo taken on May 6, 2019, shows Lee Hye-hoon, a representative of the minor opposition Bareunmirae Party, as she delivers a media briefing at the National Assembly on a National Intelligence Service report on North Korea’s latest launches of several “ground-to-ground” projectiles. (Yonhap)

 South Korea’s spy agency said Monday it does not see North Korea’s firing of short-range projectiles last week as provocative as they appear to have been “ground-to-ground” weapons.
The National Intelligence Service (NIS) delivered an initial analysis of the North’s projectiles fired into the sea off its east coast on Saturday in a briefing to Lee Hye-hoon, a representative of the minor opposition Bareunmirae Party, at the National Assembly. 
The NIS didn’t specify the type of the ground-to-ground projectiles, saying the analysis is still underway, according to Rep. Lee.
The spy agency said North Korea’s latest move suggests that it will not walk away from the negotiating table, the lawmaker told reporters following the briefing.

Yonhap

You can read more at the link, but the test of the MLRS I think was clearly a measured provocation. They sent a message that Seoul and the major US bases at Camp Humphreys and Osan Airbase can be targeted with their MLRS. This message is intended to remind US negotiators of the threat they pose and thus the need to be taken seriously.

They are starting small and as their impatience increases expect them to increase the range of the weapon system they test. Next up it makes since they would test one of their short range SCUD missile systems.

Tags:
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
setnaffa
setnaffa
5 years ago

Technically, all ICBMs are “ground to ground” weapons. Perhaps a better term could have been devised.

1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x