Korean Missile Crisis II

If we had to decide on which nation to take on, I can't imagine that North Korea would be the most intimidating opponent for us. They have suffered under an autocratic regime for years and have faced famine and scarcity of resources that would render the nation nearly defenseless in a regime change situation. Even Iraq was better off than North Korea is today. But attacking is not the answer, as it would only further stretch out our "limited" military resources and cause even more global dissent. So what is the solution to this problem that President Bush let grow from a little annoyance to the biggest threat since Soviet missiles arrived in Cuba.


I don't believe that North Korea would survive as is stands if Kim Jong Il were not in power. He's a classic tyrant: born into power, surrounded by yes-men and worshipers who treat him as a diety and never hearing any dissenting opinions...oh yeah, and he's incredibly short, even for a Korean man. South Korea is one of the pinnacles of modern society with ultra-modern cities and an upwardly mobile and educated society. Despite the relatively similar geographical and ethnic characteristics, North and South Korea have vastly different economies and politics. If that hard border that was set during the Korean War were to soften and the DMV were to actually be demilitarized, we might see something similar to what happened with Germany.


So what would happen if we were to assassinate Kim Jong Il? Would North Korea collapse into anarchy and descend into the hands of terrorists? No, definitely not...though it might fall further into Chinese control, but China is less of a threat than North Korea with Kim Jong Il in power. I was saying this before we invaded Iraq, when Il was basically begging us to invade to see his nuclear progress and the various weapons he was working on. To me, Kim Jong Il is the single most threatening person in the world because he has the political power and resources necessary to develop the kinds of weapons that actually pose a threat to everyone worldwide.


Am I advocating political assassinations? Yeah, I think I am...sometimes a leader is too powerful to be allowed to continue his control of a nation. When the life of a tyrant is weighed against the lives of millions of innocent people, there is no question. But where would we draw the line? Would I advocate assassinating Castro, Chavez or Olmerht? Certainly not, but they aren't threatening to launch missiles on the population base of the west coast. You can't tell me that the Korean people could be any worse off if Kim Jong Il were to be assassinated and replaced with anyone. The Korean people are very smart and if they were given a chance to rise up and lead themselves, this world would be a safer place. Then finally we could focus our energy on the regions that truly need our help: Africa and the Middle East.