The U.S. Had a Clear Shot at Killing Kim Jong Un on July 4

[Alabama_Indy10]

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-us-didn-t-kill-kim-jong-un-icbm-test-july-4-2017-7

Kim better be careful

[Fight for Trump]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

[Crumpets]

I sometimes wonder if there's an office in Langley with a ticker on the wall reading "It has been _2019_ days since this office conspired to overthrow a world leader"

[kyc0705]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

Wasn't there a piece about that in The Atlantic? There are a thousand options that the U.S. has w/r/t North Korea, and all of them are varying shades of bad.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

Props to the administration for sussing out the possibilities and electing not to act. Regime change is not a cure-all for geopolitical ills; it is impossible to predict who grabs power in the immediate aftermath of an assassination and it isn't implausible to suggest that whomever does is possibly worse.

[ProudModerate2]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

Props to the administration for sussing out the possibilities and electing not to act. Regime change is not a cure-all for geopolitical ills; it is impossible to predict who grabs power in the immediate aftermath of an assassination and it isn't implausible to suggest that whomever does is possibly worse.

Agree.
And you don't know if the balance of loonys in leadership positions, would immediately attack, regardless of evidence pointing to the US or South Korea for the assassination.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

Props to the administration for sussing out the possibilities and electing not to act. Regime change is not a cure-all for geopolitical ills; it is impossible to predict who grabs power in the immediate aftermath of an assassination and it isn't implausible to suggest that whomever does is possibly worse.

More likely, props to the bureaucracy (military and civilian) who declined to provide the idiots who make up the Trump Administration with the chance to make a stupid decision.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

The consequences of a decapitation strike on North Korea are so difficult to predict that it's not really on the table at this point.

Props to the administration for sussing out the possibilities and electing not to act. Regime change is not a cure-all for geopolitical ills; it is impossible to predict who grabs power in the immediate aftermath of an assassination and it isn't implausible to suggest that whomever does is possibly worse.

More likely, props to the bureaucracy (military and civilian) who declined to provide the idiots who make up the Trump Administration with the chance to make a stupid decision.

Possible. I don't know whose decision it was to forego a strike, but it does show that the Washington foreign policy blob is finally learning that regime change has more negatives than positives in nearly all instances.

[Fight for Trump]

Possible. I don't know whose decision it was to forego a strike, but it does show that the Washington foreign policy blob is finally learning that regime change has more negatives than positives in nearly all instances.

I don't think "regime change" as we commonly think about it has ever been considered a serious option for known nuclear states.

[Del Tachi]

Possible. I don't know whose decision it was to forego a strike, but it does show that the Washington foreign policy blob is finally learning that regime change has more negatives than positives in nearly all instances.

I don't think "regime change" as we commonly think about it has ever been considered a serious option for known nuclear states.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Possible. I don't know whose decision it was to forego a strike, but it does show that the Washington foreign policy blob is finally learning that regime change has more negatives than positives in nearly all instances.

I don't think "regime change" as we commonly think about it has ever been considered a serious option for known nuclear states.

Which I would content is a result of a realization that regime changes during the cold war came with a slew of unforeseen consequences, most of which were destructive to US interests.

On it's face, yes regime change for a nuclear power isn't a serious option, but I'm always skeptical of the decision making process of much of the foreign policy establishment, so this decision to forego a strike is a positive development in a modern, broader global strategy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Again, has the moratorium signed on assassination signed by President Ford in the mid-70's been repealed or something? The CIA had to tiptoe around that prohibition during the Reagan years, and it was mentioned in a Bob Woodward book on the Bush years.

[136or142]

Was he riding in a motorcade in a convertible with the top down?