Just for the sake of argument..... possible to take out Kim and...if it is, implications?

Why send in a team when you know exactly where he is? Drone the dumb bastard. The implications would probably be serious. No one would miss him, but ordering the assassination of a country's leader is a serious thing to do. Even if he is a dick.

I'm sure you'd be thinking the same thing if their first missile landed on your family too, huh?

The next family member in line would take over. If we took out his whole family, the generals would fight over who controls the country. It would still be a totalitarian dictatorship. That's all some countries understand and why regime change only tends to make things worse.

His generals may go suicide or be freed from the tyrant, who knows. That's why this situation is so tense.

quote:

---

I'm sure you'd be thinking the same thing if their first missile landed on your family too, huh?

---

This is such a bullshite response. Just because you fear someone doesn't give you a right to take them out. There needs to be a clear and PRESENT danger to justify such an act.

Sorry, but I'm not just going to believe the media got it right that 1) NK has working nuke warheads & 2) they would really launch them insuring their own destruction in the process.

History has made it clear. All this racket from NK is to get foreign countries to pickup the tab of taking care of NK citizens since the dictator prefers to spend on the military rather than taking care of the people.

if nobody listened, cared or responded to NK they would have nothing to gain from all this saber rattling. There is a realistic chance they'd stop.

quote:

---

Call me a crazy humanitarian, but, I kind of think the rest of the world looking on as an evil person conducts a mass psychological experiment on 25 million people is sort of a bad thing.

---

its been going on for decades now, what's a few more years?!?


I'm tired of the saber rattling, personally

quote:

---

Let's say you are in a room with another dude and he says he wants to kill you. There is a gun on the table and you have a gun. Do you let him pick that gun up?

---

Terrible analogy.

If you want a correct one, i'm locked in a room with a guy and we both have guns. he says he wants to kill me. At what point do I use mine? At the very least I wouldn't consider it until the gun was pointed at me as I see it with my own two eyes.

If we want to get an even more accurate scenario, you take the guy who wants to kill me with his gun and put him on one side of a soundproof curtain such that I cannot see or hear him directly. Put me on the other side. Now put a media outlet in the middle and have them tell me what the guy on the other side is doing. In this situation, do I blindly believe the media person telling me a guy on other side wants to kill me and is ready to shoot when I cannot verify the guy even has a gun?

quote:

---

Would the next in line simply launch nukes cause they are mirror images of Kim?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

At what point do I use mine? At the very least I wouldn't consider it until the gun was pointed at me as I see it with my own two eyes.

---

What if the guy is shooting at you, but missing and he puts down that gun and goes picks up a machine gun or a shotgun.

That is the issue. He is already firing missiles at people. Ask Japan.

I'm sure there are contingencies in place in case something like this happens that would unleash hell on SK, including a possible nuclear strike.

The only way for anything remotely like this to be successful would be a China-backed coup that would overturn all of the upper-echelon military leaders (or have their backing), and in which the soldiers would be informed and acquiesce.