I keep thinking, how hard could it be to just kill Kim Jong Un?
It would violate all sorts of international and domestic laws, of course. We haven't declared war on North Korea. And the only way they've attacked us so far is verbally. (At what point do words become actionable?)
If, somehow, the CIA managed to sneak into North Korea and arrange Un's death, it would bring universal condemnation. World leaders would simultaneously denounce Trump and inwardly breathe a sigh of relief that the world's biggest threat was taken care of while they managed to keep their own hands clean.
The MSM, which almost entirely ignored the previous administration's three bombs per hour, seven days per week schedule during Obama's last year in office, would of course go crazy with outrage over this one killing by Trump.
They have been calling for Trump's impeachment since he first got into office, and for once, they'd have justifiable grounds.
They have been calling for Trump's impeachment since he first got into office, and for once, they'd have justifiable grounds.
But how would the North Koreans themselves react to Kim Jong Un's death? I keep imagining that they would react the same way the inhabitants of Oz did when the Wicked Witch of the West melted.
Do the North Koreans not live in terror of Un? Do they not fear to speak their minds even to their own families? Wouldn't they, in their heart of hearts, regard this as the lifting of a great cloud? Do they not want to be reunited with their brethren to the south?
There's no easy solution here, and no pretty outcome. But what are the alternatives? The destruction of Seoul, or Tokyo? The bombing of Guam, or California? Our missile deterrent systems are not perfect.
Even if Kim Jong Un doesn't make good on his threats, he would continue to operate the Hermit Kingdom as a virtual prison, with many its residents practically starving, while he lives like Sultan of Brunei.
Even if Kim Jong Un doesn't make good on his threats, he would continue to operate the Hermit Kingdom as a virtual prison, with many its residents practically starving, while he lives like Sultan of Brunei.
A surgical strike would result in all sorts of political problems, so the Trump administration is unlikely to do a preemptive one. But in terms of preventing loss of life, all the other alternatives all seem worse.
Posts
18 comments:
Taking out Kim Jong Un alone wouldn't be enough. In order to end the dynasty, his entire family would need to be eliminated, which complicates things.
And don't assume the North Koreans would necessarily be happy if the Kim Dynasty were taken out: they have been brainwashed to believe that the Kims are godlike. When Kim Il Sung died, thousands of citizens were literally crying. Kim Jong Il's official biography stated that he didn't need to use the toilet, and the citizens apparently believed that. They really do believe that, although life is bad in North Korea, everywhere else is just as bad or worse. The propaganda there is intense, much worse than propaganda under Stalin. North Korea has a strict hierarchy/caste system. If the Kims were taken out, the elites would lose their status and would likely be pissed off.
I can recommend a great book on this: 'Nothing to Envy' by Barbara Demick. It was written by a journalist who interviewed refugees from North Korea. I bought it as I thought it was better to hear from people who actually lived there, and it's one of the most gripping non-fiction books I've ever read.
- Gethin
Gethin --
That's true; there's been an awful lot of brainwashing that's gone on in that country in the past few decades. I have to wonder about how much of that personal stuff about the "royal" family the people believe, though. Among the other things that have been said about Kim Jong Il is that he "regularly" shoots three or four holes-in-one per round of golf; that he was born on a mountaintop and that winter turned to spring the moment he was born, and a new star was formed in the heavens as he was born, too. And that list goes on. Do the North Korean people really believe that? I have my doubts.
The other thing is, one of the surest signs of how people feel is how they vote with their feet; and while there are no refugees from South Korea to North, there do seem to be a fair amount of refugees FROM North Korea, which would indicate that people there have some sense of how badly off they are.
But, yeah, maybe taking out one person isn't enough. I was thinking that because Kim Jong Un had had one of his own uncles killed, and also had a half-brother killed in Indonesia, that even his own family would be relieved if he were assassinated. But you could be right, maybe they would just see it as their opportunity to grab power.
What are the chances you could pinpoint his location?
Would killing Kim be the end of the regime?
Might they see it as a declaration of war and attack their neighbors?
Steven --
That's all possible. I wasn't really seriously suggesting this, it was more like just throwing it out there as a point of discussion. I do think that, say, Un dying of a heart attack would be an ideal solution. But as Gethin points out, it might just mean that one of his relatives would then seize power and be just as despotic. The country really isn't set up to run as anything but a dictatorship.
Maybe the best thing to do would be to somehow put them under South Korean rule, sort of like how East Germany was melded into West Germany in 1989.
Hasn't China said that they will defend N. Korea unless N Korea strikes first?
Right there, if true, the US first strike has a huge problem.
Have also read a strike against N Korea will surely result in a massive attack on S Korea in which hundreds of thousand will be killed within hours.
Your argument that Kim is a horrible person, ruling over a fiefdom in which his people suffer - is a regime change argument. The US has utterly failed to successfully execute a military regime change that resulted in a better life for the for the people of the country (Iraq; Syria; Libya; Afghanistan). Will we ever learn?
Un's threats are crazy - and they have been for a long long time. He has threatened to annihilate the US over and over again. Yet he never does. Propaganda for his own people, most likely. I read an article describing the brutality of US effort in the Korean war, carpet bombing, etc etc.
If Un is antagonizing the US - we are certainly antagonizing in return. And we have 28,000 US troops sitting on his boarder. If that isn't a valid reason for a N Korean gripe - what is?
Un's actions in developing nuclear weapons and ICBM's are completely rational. Clearly he has seen what happens to the leaders of countries in the US cross hairs: death. His only hope for survival is an arsenal that the US doesn't dare mess with.
So - why the heck would Kim nuke Guam? China won't defend him. Nobody in the world would. Its a suicide move. Kim's weapons development are clearly for his survival, not suicide.
And - I fail to see how this is the US's problem. Its an Asian problem - let them deal with it.
Here's my prediction: the US will stage a false flag attack portraying N Korea as the source. And then the US will do its best to obliterate the country. Massive loss of life will ensue in N Korea, S Korea and elsewhere.
We - in the US - will never, ever learn.
After N Korea, look for the war against Iran - with the same rationale. Can't let the mullahs have nukes.
- Ed
Ed --
It's true, we've never succeeded in regime change, at least not since WWII, other than maybe in Grenada. Some US-supported leaders have won in Central and South America. But they usually topple after a while. We supported one of the older leaders in el Salvador, I forget his name. And we supported Pinochet in Chile (I think), but he eventually got toppled too. Ditto for the Shah of Iran.
The fact that Un has threatened Guam and Hawaii and California has made it our problem. I used to think we could just ignore him, now I'm less sure. Right now we seem to be in watchful waiting mode. I agree, though, that a lot of what he says is just bluster, for the benefit of the audience back home, and maybe he doesn't expect to be taken seriously by the US. I just don't know. But he is a loose cannon, in both the metaphorical and literal sense, and will require a lot of, at the very least, attention.
Also, I can't see China nuking Seoul for the sake of defending NK, even if someone else attacks first. And I'm not even sure if it will be clear who makes the first move. What if NK launches another ICBM that travels over Japan and then explodes -- perhaps by accident --somewhere off Japan's Pacific coast, close enough to cause some mild shock waves and radiation damage. It wouldn't be a direct hit, but it would cause damage, and it might not be clear if that's what NK intended. What then? NK has certainly been launching a lot of missiles recently, and that's one possible scenario. And we do have an agreement with Japan to defend them, that was part of the agreement after WWII.
I can see a lot of scenarios, none of them pretty. I still think that some sort of surreptitious strike against Un himself would be ideal, if not practical for political reasons.
Just for the sake of discussion - why did we not do a surgical strike on Sadam, Gaddafi or al-Assad - and avoid so much bloodshed and destruction?
I see China as increasing in confidence and assertiveness. I think it would be foolish to assume that China will not act as it has stated it will - and defend N Korea if it is attacked first. There are a myriad of ways that could play out without China nuking anyone - that could be very painful for the US and others in the region.
And - I'm not following you reasoning here: Un has made outrageous threats for a long time now; how has it NOW become imperative to take them seriously?
I still see the greater sub-text: the war with Iran cannot rationally commence if we let N Korea get away with it - its just too obvious.
- Ed
Ed --
Actually, with Gaddafi they did pretty much just go after him (admittedly, after softening the country up with some aerial bombing). But we were never really engaged in a full scale war with Libya, and I'm not sure about this, but my recollection is that as soon as they got Gaddafi, hostilities pretty much ceased. (I could be wrong, my memory of that is a little fuzzy.) I agree that we should never have gone after him though, he wasn't presenting a threat to the US or making noises about lobbing a nuke our way. And I agree that we were better off with him in charge of that country.
As far as Saddam, as soon as they hung him, the "war" part of the war was pretty much over too, was it not? Once again, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, the US had nothing to gain, that much was obvious from the way Israel and AIPAC in particular wanted us there so badly: they wanted us to dispose of a threat to them. And Hussein was not threatening to lob bombs our way either.
As far as al-Assad, I think we should side with Russia and defend Syria from ISIS and other external threats. Syria is a relatively modernized country, especially compared to a lot of its neighbors. And once again, Israel wants us to vanquish one of its enemies.
But again, none of those guys threatened to nuke us, and I don' think we should have gone after any of them. NK is a different situation. I don't want war either, which is why I'd prefer something more surgical. And again, as I said to Steven (above), "I wasn't really seriously suggesting this, it was more like just throwing it out there as a point of discussion. I do think that, say, Un dying of a heart attack would be an ideal solution."
I agree Un dying of a heart attack would be ideal but I imagine the best thing for N. Koreans would be if the entire Kim Jong family were wiped out. The regime would be unlikely to recover from such blow.
This would need to be done by N. Korean resistance of some sort since any involvement by foreign power, especially Americans, would almost certainly lead to war.
John, what do you make of the fact Un was educated in Europe and seems to be familiar with Western culture, is a basketball fan etc.
Our media presents him as irrational and semi-crazy but they do love their demonic dictators, with new example of Hitler surfacing every decade, so their portrait of him is dubious to say the least.
He could be cruel but coldly rational and pragmatic. Certainly his development of these weapons is reasonable. On the other hand, what are the chances that person who grew up being told he's a god can be sane?
Rona --
True, probably the entire "royal" family would have to be wiped out. Or at least intimidated into full retreat. Right now it's hard to imagine the North Koreans themselves revolting, since Un has such a stranglehold on power.
I think what Un got from his Western/Swiss education was a superficial acquaintance with Western culture, and a liking for the NBA, sort of the same way the typical American of average intelligence might go through high school and become fixated on, say, football, or skateboarding, or video games, but not really gain an appreciation of Western culture overall.
Un is a hard one to figure out. Usually with public figures there's an obvious syndrome at work (Trump is a narcissistic personality with ADHD, Gore has Aspergers, both Clintons are sociopaths); but with Un, I can't put my finger on any one thing, other than maybe a learned narcissism. (You put your finger on it by saying "what are the chances that a person who grew being told he's a god can be sane?"
I've been coming around to the viewpoint that a lot of his talk is bluster aimed at his own people rather than the West, and if that's the case, we have less to fear from him. On the other hand, he's flinging around these ICBM's and testing nukes like a 13-year-old playing with firecrackers on the Fourth of July, and he could just decide he wants to impress his own people by actually using one of them on another country. You'd think he would realize that would be committing suicide, but who knows.
As a Christian (who can have anxiety over life and/or world events), my solution is to pray. A plaque that my dad gave me as a girl comes to mind, "Hope for the best, cope with the rest." Since there are so many disordered people in our world, I have a hard time fully trusting people, having confidence that our world leaders will operate in our best interests (since many of them are disordered). Disordered people are selfish and willing to do diabolical, harmful things to innocent people. Praying helps.
- birdie
I wouldn't say there are "no" defectors from South to North, just considerably less than vice versa: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_defectors
Considering how bad things are in North Korea, there are actually very few refugees. From the book I read, most of the refugees only thought of defecting because:
a) they lived close to the Tumen river, and could see with their own eyes that life was better in China (they could see cars in China, where there are almost none in NK)
b) they'd illegally listened to South Korean radio or watched TV and heard that life was better there
c) they knew (of) someone else who'd already done it
Reportedly, it's rare that a North Korean will spontaneously consider escaping. It's not like East Germany, where it was much easier to obtain information about life in the West, leading to masses of people fleeing via Hungary.
From a military perspective, would it really be necessary for the CIA to sneak in to NK? Couldn't they just do the sort of drone strike that Obama used?
- Gethin
Gethin --
Yes, I suppose there are a few, although some of the cases the article you linked cites are explainable in other ways. Of the 333 South Korean POW's who chose to remain in North Korea, I have to think that there was some pressure -- possibly threats -- exerted on them to remain. And of the 800 missing North Korean defectors to the South, I have to imagine that some were either assassinated by NK agents, and some kidnapped back.
You make good points about why there are fewer NK defectors than you'd think. I think the penalties for escaping are also harsher than they were in East Germany. I've heard that NK will punish remaining family members of a defector escapes, and that has to cut down on the number of possible defectors too.
I was thinking about what would happen with a drone attack, but the problem with that is that it would have US fingerprints all over it. If Un were assassinated, it would have to be done more surreptitiously. A heart attack is really the ideal solution, except as you pointed out previously, that would probably just mean that another relative would take over.
What got me thinking about this in the first place is that there are no obvious, easy solutions. For now, inaction may be the only feasible one. Just within out, and hope it's all bluffing. "Hope" is constantly said to be lousy investing philosophy, and maybe it's a lousy political philosophy too, but I just don't see any good alternatives.
He will take himself out eventually, 2 litres of champagne, packs of cigarettes a day, boxes of cigars, fattening imported kobe beef, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a secret cocaine habit.
But what will happen if he gets to himself first? Will it be better than taking him out or worse?
I don't know.
The OSS report on hitler said the worst outcomes would be either assissination or him going out into battle and fighting to the death, the war would end very bitterly. Langer predicted he would commit suicide, and this would be a good outcome that would lead the an easier surrender.
Is gorging yourself close enough to suicide?
-GA
Ga --
I agree, he wouldn't be destined to live a long life just based on his health habits. The problem is, that's a very slow motion suicide, and what harm could he do before he goes? And if he senses that he's fading away, would that incline him even more toward lobbing one of those nukes? It might, given his narcissistic psychology. I don't know if the world can afford to be that patient.
If some sort of anti-nuke EMP could be invented. Then an invasion would be feasible, but dividing north Korea would be a hassle. China would probably see an opportunity to come in from the north. Millions of cheap laborers up for grabs. Tons of natural resources.
Pyongyang could turn into cold war Berlin. One half for China, the other half for the west.
-Ga
He could get taken out by his own. Like Stalin,my theory I suspect he suffered a stroke but those around him deliberately withheld treatment and made sure to wait as long as possible to get to him on the day he did, and he died a slow painful karmic death.
They also made sure to arrest, torture, and execute Beria just to be safe once Stalin died.
-Ga
Ga --
I hadn't even thought of that. A China takeover would be another good outcome. Not exactly what you're describing, but a bloodless coup by Beijing: NK would just become part of greater China. I'm sure the NK's would prefer to be reunited with their cousins in SK, but at least this way there wouldn't be widespread bloodshed. China will probably become the US's greatest rival/Cold War-style enemy in the next 20 years, but at least in the meantime, the nukes would remain unused.
Interesting theory about Stalin. I didn't even know how Beria died, but that too seems karmic.
Post a Comment