Previous posts in this discussion:
PostNorth Korea Missile Crisis: George Shultz's Appeal (Istvan Simon, USA, 09/07/17 4:17 am)
Many thanks to General Michael Sullivan's overview (September 5th) of what a preventive strike vs retaliatory strike on North Korea would look like. I would like to ask an additional question. Would not a decapitation strike on the Korean regime be less bloody perhaps with a concomitant destruction of as much of its military hardware as he already suggested?
On the other hand, I agree with George Shultz and others who are urging President Trump to keep talking to Kim Jong-un in direct talks before a decision is made to attack preemptively. As I argued in an earlier post, not yet published, the Kim regime is pursuing its nuclear program with singular focus because it fears regime-change initiated by us. This is an area where we could offer concessions in exchange for stopping all nuclear and missile tests and development. Kim Jong-un would want guarantors--perhaps China and Russia could be guarantors if we do not live up to our word. A mediator body would need to be set up for adjudicating disputes in case of complaints of non-compliance by either party in the future if an agreement is hammered out by diplomacy.
JE comments: My apologies to Istvan Simon for overlooking an earlier post. Sometimes I publish out of order to keep the conversation flowing. I'll work to catch up on the backlog. For now, could Istvan Simon tell us what he means by a "decapitation strike"? Go straight for Lil' Kim? How do you do that?
What about a third option, sponsoring a palace coup? Are there any "moderate" or reform elements in the North that can be won over? This, to be sure, is a very dangerous exercise. Perhaps it's fantasy. But it's preferable to war.