After a month of speculation, the much-missed Kim Jong Un is accounted for, and he appears to be in reasonably good health. We’ve discussed the ankles and the cane (had to be done). Now what do we talk about?

Before we settle comfortably back to the normal patter of unknowables and Team America references, and before Kim distracts us by riding a rollercoaster or blowing something up, here are a few topics worth considering.

Parts of the conversation during Kim’s ankle-cation were quite useful and should be continued. Several folks (such as Scott Snyder) raised the issue of succession. Kim Jong Un lacks an obvious heir. If Kim were to expire from a sudden ankle infection or a bad batch of Courvoisier, who’s next in line?

Relatedly, if succession did not go smoothly, and civil war erupted, this could create chaos on the peninsula. How are the ROK and the United States planning to respond? Have they communicated their thoughts and plans adequately to each other? They also need to bring Beijing into the conversation; chaos in North Korea would likely draw in China, potentially leading to misperception and conflict among American, Chinese, and Korean forces. U.S. and ROK scholars and diplomats have long attempted to talk to Beijing about a North Korea collapse scenario, but have been frustrated by a Chinese unwillingness to engage. Do we see any progress (at least at the Track 2 level) to improve U.S.-ROK-China communication? Can we think of any ways to make any?

Then there’s the topic of human rights. The dreadful suffering of the North Korean people is a depressing subject—particularly because there just doesn’t seem to be much that we can do about it. But it deserves far more attention, regardless of how much fun we have discussing Dennis Rodman, #WhyAustin, or Pyongyang’s feud with Seth Rogen and James Franco. What can we do about human rights in North Korea? Is there anything short of regime change that the United States, South Korea, and others could do to mitigate suffering among its people? If we had any ideas, we’d also have to discuss the ethical question of whether we might be empowering the regime that is harming them in the first place.

The questions I’ve raised reflect my own interests and research program, and I know I’ve left a lot out. Joel Wit and Jenny Town recently raised several issues related to North Korean weapons development. Nuclear weapons specialists, political economists, and experts on the regime can weigh in with important topics we should not be forgetting.

What else should we be talking about?