Posted on 04/18/2017 3:54:40 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A question that is just as important is whether assassinating Kim or the generals in charge of North Korea’s nuclear program, ballistic missile program, military or intelligence services would be a good policy. We tend to believe that if we just took out the top, bad guy in the regime, all of the other bad guys in that regime will be scared straight, change their behavior and suddenly turn their governments into bastions of human rights and democracy. We’ve had experience with his belief before: several days prior to major military operations in Iraq, Washington lobbed cruise missiles at Saddam and the Iraqi political leadership in the belief that perhaps further war could be avoided. Whether that hypothesis would have played out is unknown because Saddam survived those attacks—it’s comfortable to assume that the Baa’thist leadership would surrender to coalition forces the next day, but it’s just as likely that the war would go on.
North Korea is an entirely different situation than Iraq was in 2003. Kim Jong-un is solidly in power, having killed or marginalized anyone (including his uncle and half-brother) perceived to be even a minimal threat to his control. Unlike Iraq, whose military was demoralized and degraded by the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and by a sanctions regime over the next decade, North Korea is a nuclear-weapons state with ballistic missiles that have the capability to level Seoul quickly and target U.S. bases in the region. Killing Kim and banking on the idea that the regime would change how it does business after seven decades would be a high price to pay if that untested theory proved to be wrong. Because North Korea is such a black-hole in terms of human intelligence, the U.S. intelligence community wouldn’t be able to confidently assess that the man or woman (Kim’s sister, for instance) who replaces Kim wouldn’t be just as vicious or unpredictable. Assassinating a head-of-state is the definition of an act of war, and nobody can accurately guess whether cooler heads in Pyongyang would prevail over those who would be itching to demonstrate strength through retaliation.
Putting Kim six feet underground is only one choice in a set of options that the National Security Council will present to President Trump for his consideration. It may even be a policy option that is so far outside the mainstream that Trump’s national-security aides would disabuse him of studying it further. Reaction from Beijing would be swift and unyielding, and as much as the South Korean and Japanese governments would like North Korea to behave more predictably, it’s not at all certain that Seoul and Tokyo would believe that assassinating the men at the top would achieve that objective.
One hopes that all of this talk is more of political gamesmanship to goad the Chinese into cooperating with the United States, and nothing more.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
The DMZ minefields would work in SK's favor, in that case. China would have the bigger problem on its hands.
Then he would be dead!
I think you’ve got it. Embarrass him in the right way, or enough times, and he’ll be out of power or worse at the hands of his own (high-ranking) people.
Three day party ,,,,,,
He’d be replaced by...
Kim Jong [insert prefix here]
anti- against antifreeze
de- opposite defrost
dis-* not, opposite of disagree
en-, em- cause to encode, embrace
fore- before forecast
in-, im- in infield
in-, im-, il-, ir-* not injustice, impossible
inter- between interact
mid- middle midway
mis- wrongly misfire
non- not nonsense
over- over overlook
pre- before prefix
re-* again return
semi- half semicircle
sub- under submarine
super- above superstar
trans- across transport
un-* not unfriendly
under- under undersea
Unfortunately, that’s illegal.
OTOH, we don’re recognize North Korea, so is he a legitimate head of state?
Unfortunately, this is where we do need very accurate political intelligence about the power structure in NK. We need to have a good idea of what the aftermath of the assassination of Kimmie would look like in order to decide if bumping him off would be a good idea. Knowing who is next in line is that starting point.
“Well, I for one would host a celebratory barbecue
I hope you would be making Korean barbecue ribs. YUMMY.
One of his brainwashed subordinates would take his place and probably be a more effective tyrant and foreign adversary than he his.
Yup. Hard to imagine things being any worse for the citizens in NK than they are now. I’d say close to impossible.
The murderer deserves the death penalty himself for all he has killed - just like Stalin and Hitler deserved it.......
“I think he should get a Scalia/Breitbart style heart attack... “
Not to make light of Scalia’s death, but he wasn’t exactly the epitome of personal fitness, not unlike Kim Jung In. So a heart attack may not be out of the question.
He would be dead, thats it.
-——The future really IS unification but anyone who thinks it would be a Cake Walk is living in La La Land.-——
100 % Concur....
There are so many multiple issues to be tackled it really hard to fathom...
just the psychological abuse the north has infected on it’s people would take at least a generation to overcome....
How does one who knows every person, even your own family will rat you out for a government favor live in an open and free society?
When you fall out of favor, three generations of your extended family goes to the camps...
Onona, Unfamiliar with “svp”. Could you clarify? Thanks!
Shortened from RSVP, asking people to respond to invitations to parties, weddings, etc.
Of course! (Bachert slaps his forehead!) Thanks!! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.