I thought about this when a coworker mentioned in casual conversation that they wondered why a certain head of state (no reason to get into specifics) is not simply done away with to resolve a currently ongoing international conflict. To my knowledge that’s almost never done in the real world because it rarely works as intended. I was wondering if any politics/international relationship experts or avid Hitman/Assassin’s Creed players knows the real reason why this is, and if there’s even a official term for why this is not done in real politics? Thanks.
In: Other
There are a couple of reasons.
1. Security is serious for heads of state and it’s difficult to pull it off.
2. It sets a precedent that it’s acceptable to assassinate opposing heads of state, this isn’t a precedent that heads of state are generally comfortable with.
3. It must be combined with having a replacement ready to go from within the existing ranks of the dictator. Dictatorships value loyalty most highly for this reason. It’s almost impossible to line up an acceptable successor without letting the dictator find out.
4. If it emerged that a state did this, it would be all-out war, and it would be very difficult for its allies to roll in behind the assassinating state.
5. Generally, the consequences are more severe for taking this action, than for letting current status continue.
Not that it hasn’t been done before – Google will give plenty of examples, but it generally is avoided due to the consequences.
Latest Answers