AAA

Thesis
If the past is any prologue, we can be reasonably assured that the following three elements
will shape our public discussion of the event: assertions that this rocket can be readily
converted to be an intercontinental ballistic missile; that North Korea could have weaponized
a nuclear weapon; and that the launch proves the need for missile defenses.(lines 3 - 6)

Points of Argument
the Unha-3 cannot be converted to an ICBM capable of threatening the US
mainland.(Lines 33 - 35). If this fact is true this is a very crucial point for the entire argument.
I don't understand why he put this piece of evidence in because it goes against the thesis saying
that we need missile defence systems, because if they cant even launch a missile then why
would we need them?
Add this to other technical problems they need to solve, as well as the real limitations on
their rocket technologies, and one comes to a shaky but reasonable technical conclusion that the
threat of a North Korean nuclear-armed ICBM to the US mainland could easily be decades or
more away.(Lines 73 - 76). This is talking about how they aren't even close to completing their
nuclear project. This is also a bad piece of evidence on their part because it should be explaining
why we need to act and get the defense systems not saying how they aren't even close to
completing them.
But if Washington is truly concerned about this threat, there is a technical solution that
would work: a system with fast interceptors carried by drones or airplanes that would shoot
down the ICBM while it is in powered flight.(Lines 81 -83). Later in the article it says that we
could build it with past technologies but the U.S decided not to. This is a kinda good piece of
evidence because it is saying that the country should care more about the impending nuclear
attacks and build the defence systems.

Good Or Bad Argument?

I feel like this is a really bad argument because all of the evidence that is in this article
makes me not want to spend the money and build the missile defence systems. In the article it
even says that the unah-3 cannot be converted to an ICBM capable of threatening the US.
Which is telling the reader that we don't need to worry about an attack any time soon, so why
build the defence system? Overall the article has no decent points supporting the thesis saying
that we need to build the defence systems. So in conclusion this is a bad argument.

Vocab Words
1. Bloated
a. Swollen with fluid or gas

2. Provocative
a.
deliberately.
3. Saber
a.
edge.
4. Assertion
a.
5. ICBM
a.

Causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially

A heavy cavalry sword with a curved blade and a single cutting
A confident and forceful statement of fact or belief
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

Reflection
For this article we also had a seminar to go with it which I think wasn't very successful.
We didn't tackle any main problems in the text or even find the thesis which is a very important
thing. I enjoyed learning more about north korea and now getting to know about their nuclear
projects. I also feel like it wasn't a very well written article simply for not supporting their thesis
with enough evidence, so it was very hard to see the point the article was trying to make.