Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 05 Sep 2017, 7:13 am

A perfect storm is fast approaching.

After lobbing test missiles over Japan and now successfully testing an H Bomb, the game has changed.

I find myself wrestling with whether or not the US or Korea or Japan or whoever would be morally justified to assassinate Kim Jong-un.

If we could look into a crystal ball and see how the next couple of years plays out with this lunatic we might be disturbed to find out that millions of people in both his country and others were killed in some kind of nuclear strike or retaliatory strike.

In a year or two or sooner we might have a clearer picture of how many people were needlessly killed. We would be able to calculate how many were now suffering in the aftermath of nuclear war. We might even have a fairly accurate estimate on how many billions of dollars in damages were incurred as a result of some kind of conflict.

Innocent men, women, children, seniors and private citizens either dead or suffering and all on account of one man's struggle for power.

I've said here before that I am a failed Christian pragmatist. Where I come from one is rarely justified in killing another one of our brothers or sisters. One exception I make is self-defense of course.

However to date, Kim Jong-un has not made the first move. He has threatened of course, but he has not made the first move.

All this to say, could the death of one man, could regime change via assassination, if that's what it would take, be morally justified in this case?

And if so, at what point?

Surely our best and brightest have done the calculus on this already?

Can we even successfully get to him?

And once he's gone, who fills the void? Someone even loonier?

Neither Russia or China is coming to the rescue here. They enjoy whenever the US and its allies are consumed with a destabilized situation. In fact, Putin seems to thrive at times like this. So as I see it, we're on our own.

How many assassination attempts were there on Hitler in the end? 17?

I wonder how history would have played itself out had one of those efforts succeeded?

So here we are, stuck with this whackadoodle and no crystal ball.

At this point I believe nothing will placate this man. He is on some kind of suicide mission and will Jimmy Jones his entire country if he feels it necessary.

In light of 911, and in light of the fact that he has the H bomb, and now with certitude that he has ICMs and in light of the fact that he continually speaks about the annihilation of the US and its allies, it seems to me we are justified to pursue all options to stop him, including assassination.

Still in all, murdering the man seems immoral, in spite of the points raised here to justify doing so.

Any and all takes on this topic are much appreciated.

For another thread:

Is there any chance Iran is responsible for how advanced the NK program has become? That's a separate thread but I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that our intelligence community seems so far behind the 8 ball....again.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Sep 2017, 9:23 am

In my day job, I cannot say it is moral. As a Christian, I cannot say it is moral.

However, if I were President, I'd have to consider it. The job of the President is to protect American citizens.

I would disagree that Un has not made the first move. He has equipped himself. He has threatened to use it--at times unilaterally. With these kinds of weapons, and this kind of insanity, who can wait until he launches?

There is a history of NK negotiating and lying. So, I'd say negotiating is an utter waste of time unless NK is prepared to allow unprecedented access, which they won't. This will be more of the "trust us" variety with a regime that absolutely will not tell the truth.

We ought to intercept any future missile tests and ratchet up the military situation.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10740
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Sep 2017, 11:05 am

dag
However to date, Kim Jong-un has not made the first move. He has threatened of course, but he has not made the first move.


fate
I would disagree that Un has not made the first move. He has equipped himself. He has threatened to use it--at times unilaterally
.

If just equipping a nation with nuclear weapons, then lots of nations could be justifiably attacked.
If threatening to use them, well Pakistan, Russia and China have done so in the past....

The notion of assassinating Kim Jong-Un has the same problems that a "strategic strike" would have... If it fails then Jung-Un would unleash nuclear war, and launch his army at South Korea...
What kind of certainty would you require in order to deal with either Jon-Un surviving OR his successor taking over and launching just the same?
The damage caused by a nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula would be catastrophic. Without the trigger of actual aggression by NK, conflict should be avoided.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Sep 2017, 11:10 am

I don't like the idea, I don't like the precedent it sets, I don't think it squares with our values, and it would be very risky.

I would much rather--as DF says--ratchet up the military situation. Bring resources to the area and interfere with their missile tests.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Sep 2017, 11:23 am

rickyp wrote:dag
However to date, Kim Jong-un has not made the first move. He has threatened of course, but he has not made the first move.


fate
I would disagree that Un has not made the first move. He has equipped himself. He has threatened to use it--at times unilaterally
.

If just equipping a nation with nuclear weapons, then lots of nations could be justifiably attacked.
If threatening to use them, well Pakistan, Russia and China have done so in the past....


I don't recall those nations threatening to turn the US into an ash heap, particularly in situations they initiated. But, in any event, none of the three have ever been so irrational.

I know, I know. YOU think Un is rational. That puts you in the decided minority.

The notion of assassinating Kim Jong-Un has the same problems that a "strategic strike" would have... If it fails then Jung-Un would unleash nuclear war, and launch his army at South Korea...
What kind of certainty would you require in order to deal with either Jon-Un surviving OR his successor taking over and launching just the same?
The damage caused by a nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula would be catastrophic. Without the trigger of actual aggression by NK, conflict should be avoided.


Well now, who would he blame when a group of Chinese assailants fail to kill him? The US?

Interesting.

Credible deniability would be one key.

Btw, "avoiding conflict" is what has driven us to the point where a madman nearly has the capacity to start nuking us. You might think that's success, but I don't.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Sep 2017, 11:41 am

DF has clarified my thoughts about the situation. I think the best bet is to bring military assets to the area: (1) A couple of carrier groups, (2) more air assets to Japan and SK, (3) anti-missile deployment in Japan and SK, (4) more intensive satellite coverage of NK, possibly high-level recon.

I'm not sure about our capabilities...but hopefully we can see that NK is deploying their missiles to test them...and strike them while they are on the ground or shoot them down if they are launched.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10740
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Sep 2017, 7:42 am

fate
I don't recall those nations threatening to turn the US into an ash heap

Kruschev threatened the US with the use of nuclear weapons.
Mao famously expressed no fear of a nuclear war, and a willingness to engage the US because China would have millions survive the engagement .
Pakistan threatened India.

By the way; the US threatened China with nuclear attack throughout the 1950s,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_blackmail

freeman3
I'm not sure about our capabilities...but hopefully we can see that NK is deploying their missiles to test them...and strike them while they are on the ground or shoot them down if they are launched


Sure. What could possibly go wrong if the US struck at NK missile sites?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Sep 2017, 8:53 am

What could go wrong?

Arguably, much less than if the US continues it's policy of playing Canada.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2017, 9:31 am

I have no idea what you're talking about, Ricky. I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what you're talking about. They have to move missiles to a launch site. So they could be hit en route. So what if they are hit on the launch pad? They're not nukes. The missile site would be damaged. So what?

Apparently, they are doing so right now...

https://www.google.com/amp/metro.co.uk/ ... 03851/amp/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2017, 9:54 am

This looks like a good target to show our displeasure with their testing..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohae_S ... ng_Station
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10740
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Sep 2017, 6:58 am

freeman
The missile site would be damaged. So what?



what

That is the defiant message North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho delivered on Monday to a gathering of foreign ministers from the US, China, South Korea, Japan, and other Southeast Asian countries.
“Should the US pounce upon the DPRK with military force at last, the DPRK is ready to teach the US a severe lesson with its strategic nuclear force,” Ri said, using the acronym for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s formal name.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/8/1611 ... -us-attack

When I ask, "what could go wrong?" ...this is what could go wrong.
No, it doesn't end well for NK. But neither are the consequences of NK hitting back likely to be anything but catastrophic.
So why would you risk "hitting their missile sites?" You have no idea at all if this would eliminate any threat. Nor how long it would be effective if successful. What reward could be achieved versus the almost certain result of NK all out retaliation?

Freeman3
I'm pretty sure you don't actually know what you're talking about.

But you know exactly how NK will react?Based on what? You projections?
I'm providing you quotations from Ri...
What you got?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2017, 9:28 am

rickyp wrote:But you know exactly how NK will react?Based on what? You projections?
I'm providing you quotations from Ri...
What you got?


Quotations from Ri . . . :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

As reliable as . . .

Image
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Sep 2017, 10:48 am

New York Times Bestsellers List:

7. "Quotations from Ricky: What you Got?"--A zany collection of stream of consciousness from our favorite Canadian...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20586
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2017, 10:55 am

freeman3 wrote:New York Times Bestsellers List:

7. "Quotations from Ricky: What you Got?"--A zany collection of stream of consciousness from our favorite Canadian...


:yes:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4624
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 08 Sep 2017, 6:47 am

Getting back to the original question ... we have a tendency to overthink these issues ... if you get the chance, kill the bastard with plausible deniability. If you have the capability to do so covertly, it would be a sin to not kill him.