[Niuhuru]

The problem with the sons of despots is that they lack the (for waht it’s worth) earned stature of their legendary parents. I do not think that Stalin’s son would have held the Soviet Union, plus the sons of other dictators lack the strong fist that their parents always do. They are usually pampered playboys and are unable to be taken seriously by the hardline generals. I read that his son wants to be more hardline (via Daily Mail) and I am not sure just how more hardline one can be. If the Generals don’t at all like or respect him, he might end up in front of a firing squad.

[af_vet_rr]

I do not think that Stalin’s son would have held the Soviet Union, plus the sons of other dictators lack the strong fist that their parents always do. They are usually pampered playboys and are unable to be taken seriously by the hardline generals.

Saddam's sons were the exception to that rule. They were even more sick, sadistic, and twisted than Saddam. On the other hand, they might not have lasted long if Saddam died. The military might have decided to take those sick little bastards out quickly.

[rmlew]

Kim Jong-il took the reigns from his father Kim il-Sung. Kim Jong-un has as much legitimacy.

In related fun news, the ROK has put its military on emergency alert. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/us-korea-north-alert-idUSTRE7BI06Z20111219