I disagree with that assessment. Obama followed a doctrine I had long advocated for (not that he would have read anything I said on the subject), which was to stop the charade of paying North Korea just to show up at the negotiating table, and ending up with nothing for it but more blackmail attempts for aid that never changed anything.
Obama’s policy was basically “We give you nothing, nor will we talk to you until you actually change your behavior”. Of course, they did not, they kept playing the game and got some of what they wanted from other parties and kept afloat by China.
They’re going to test Trump. They do every new leader they have to deal with, not just Americans. It could be as small as an American patrol massacred in the DMZ, or it could involve firing on a small American ship operating in the waters they claim (that no one else recognizes).
Then we’ll see how smart and rational Trump is and whether his chosen advisers talk sense into him or push something stupid.
It is primarily prohibited by Executive Order not directly by federal legislation. (There is some less restrictive language in ratified international treaties.) That order has the weight of law for Executive branch departments. There’s an important difference though, It does not constrain the President. A President could could quite legally make a unilateral change to the executive order and direct “Kill that weird haired, crazy SOB.” They would just have to ensure they aren’t in violation of that less restrictive international law.
There’s also significant wiggle room for killing leaders when in a state of armed conflict or in defense that neither the executive order or international law seem to prohibit. “Decapitation strikes” targeting Saddam Hussein, along with key members of his government, to open Operation Iraqi Freedom are an example of the first situation. A situation like Kim Jong Un threatening nuclear attack, once NK actually has a credible capability, could potentially be justified as the self defense scenario. Using that wiggle room a President could potentially designate Kim Jong Un as a legally acceptable target to kill, not legally assassinate in this case :D, even without issuing a new/changed executive order.
My brother knows a guy who was on a subway train passing through a dangerous inner city neighborhood. And there were some thuggish-looking youths across the aisle from him, and the way they were looking at him and so on made him extremely nervous. So he started pouring out imaginary cups of coffee and offering it to them. They all declined his offer, and drifted to the far side of the car and focused their attention elsewhere.
Point is that even a tough guy is sometimes afraid to mess with a nutcase. Too unpredictable.
It’s not contrary to a law, there’s only been an executive order against it, which the President can revoke at any time without needing any approvals from anyone else. The order didn’t stop operations against terrorist groups, and North Korea is not a country recognized by the US. It also doesn’t apply in wartime according to previous administrations.
So there is really no barrier to assassination if the President wants to assassinate someone, he can call them terrorists (especially since NK isn’t a recognized country), he can call it a state of war, he can call it self defense, or he can print off a piece of paper with a new executive order and change the directive in less than five minutes.
You are mistaken. North Korea is a country, and it is recognized as a country by the United States of America. What it is not is a country with diplomatic relationships with the USA.
I don’t think that North Korea actually has the capability for producing weapons-grade fissionable material, either. As I understand it, they got ahold of some in a windfall of some sort, but only enough to make about a dozen bombs, two of which they’ve already detonated, only one of them successfully.
I’m a lot more worried about North Korea’s very real conventional artillery aimed at Seoul than I am about their pathetic nuclear capabilities.
This would be like sucker-punching Mike Tyson. If he’s not expecting it, the confusion might cost him a few seconds but the counter-punch will be no less devastating.
I don’t know if NK is building a nuclear triad (their plane technology would be no match for South Korea or Japan), but they seem to have a goal of a nuclear dyad. ICBMs, but also nuclear weapons launched from submarines.
So attacking NK’s ICBM sites may not solve the problem if there are multiple subs in the ocean armed with nuclear weapons. Because of that I don’t know if the scenario you talk about would happen, because of the risk that even if you got all the ICBM launch sites, you probably couldn’t find all the submarines.
Huh, I thought the US didn’t recognize them as a country but on checking the only countries that don’t recognize them are South Korea, Japan, France, and Estonia.
It’s unlikely to happen. But if North Korea did make a nuclear attack on the United States, it would obviously be an act of war. (And technically, we’re already at war with North Korea anyway.) The American military would overrun all of North Korea within ninety days.
It’s a good question. My WAG is they would be urging the US to restraint wrt a retaliatory nuclear strike, but I doubt they would do much more than that. A unilateral nuclear attack on the US would be so over the top, regardless of whether they fired an ICBM or drove a plane or sub to the US to detonate that no one including China would have any basis to get in the US (and various alliance and treaty partners of the US) way for basically regime change in North Korea. China might actually try and be part of some sort of international invasion force so they could be part of the process and have some say in what happens, but I seriously doubt that they would stick with North Korea if this happens.
