Tom got this email:

Hi Tom,

I was wondering whether it would really be wise to go for the hard kill option on N.- Korea.

I mean, Kim has probably allready amassed a couple of nukes by now. Don't you think he's effectively achieved a deterrence with that?

In your latest knoxnews column you write that "Iran has already achieved a crude, asymmetrical sort of nuclear deterrence vis-A -vis the United States". And they haven't got the bomb yet. But N.-Korea however does have them in all probabillity. So don't you think that N.-Korea has effectively achieved this deterrence also then?

You argue for the hard kill option on North Korea, because it has no future in Asia. I agree with that, but I also think that it is too dangerous to take Kim out the hard way. Even if all the main powers in the region would support the hard kill option on N.-Korea, don't you think Kim is crazy enough to use the bomb? Cause I think he is...

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Erwin van der Rijnst

He replied:

Reasonable. Big difference is Iran is real nation and functioning regime, if bad. Authoritarian regimes can be killed with connectivity, but totalitarian regimes cannot, because population too enslaved.

Going after Iran loses China, but NK done right gets me China, so you balance your goals and you're realistic on sequencing.

Given the collateral fall-out, I don't think there will ever be a time for hard kill on Iran (though you never say never, especially with Israel as an independent variable). With NK, it's hard to see avoiding the hard kill, because even the implosion scenario probably necessitates some version.

I want both regimes gone, but again, sequencing is second only to patience for the successful grand strategist.

Tom