Well. Yeah.

There's not really anything you can argue with there, except the notion that the US might move to 'nip this in the bud' as it were.

Not likely. The North Korean military is far more formidable than anything the US have faced in the last few decades, and the US military is exhausted.

Fair enough you can argue that the real problem with the Iraq invasion wasn't the initial invasion, it was the occupation.
This wouldn't be a problem with North Korea, but that initial invasion wouldn't be the clean sweep the US has gotten used to.
Even an air invasion could simply make them take cover and wait it out. The north korean government hasn't exactly displayed an excessive amount of concern for the welfare of the people.

Kim Jong Il has been doing his damndest to ensure that he is seen as an aggressive paranoiac.
This isn't necesarily stupid, he's actually been quite a shrewd tactician. The rest of the world is wary of prodding him, and so they should be. His limits are unknown.

I think it an unlikely prospect also - as TRTL points out recent history suggests the US tends not to take on some one with as much fire power as it once might have - and there forces are fatigued -

Bush's position is also much weaker domestically so he will be unwillinging to risk opening another battle front.

It was interesting to hear a large number of talk backers (admittedly on the ABC) placed the blame for NKs intransigence at the feet of the US - for backing the little guys into a corner.

Howard is quite right to denounce North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

But he’s quite wrong to weaken Australia’s existing controls on nuclear proliferation in the region.

North Korea only entered the nuclear club this week, but China, who share a border with Korea, began their weapons program under the guise of civilian power reactors over 50 years ago.

Since then, Australia has refused China access to any nuclear materials and technologies. But last week, a closed hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties investigated new treaties designed to open up nuclear trade with China.

Compass Resources recently secured the funding of a surprise Chinese backer in their plans for the abandoned Rum Jungle Uranium Mine near Batchelor. If these treaties are enacted, we could see uranium from the NT sold to North Korea’s nuclear neighbour.

Rather than adding fuel to the fire, Australia, with our significant uranium reserves, has a particular responsibility to cut the problem off at its source, and close our uranium mines.

If you look at the history of the conflict between the US and North Korea over the past 50 years, you will see that the North Korean response to George Bush's administration is quite logical and predictable. Unfortunately, GWB doesn't have enough brains in his head to realise that "Softly, softly, catchee monkey" actually does work. If you want to accuse someone of being irrational, then GWB is your man, not Kim Jong Il.

Do not rely on Howard to exercise restraint on marketing uranium - we will be sellin git to the Indians within the next two years - he's already started softening us up

Not much time - just breaking in to pose a question?

If it is true from reports that she supplies almost two thirds of North Korea's economic needs, China should be the real key to closing down North Korea's nuclear mania.

Or has China got other plans, far more futuristic than GW Bush, or our Johnny Howard, who social scientists say may have the immediate political knack but not necessarily the one for the long term future?