Boaz... a couple of points there I disagree with:

Firstly - I suppose it's fair to interpret the North Korean stance as 'Talk to us or we'll put bombs on weapons' I'll agree with you that that is what they wish to present.

How much of this is merely bluster is still open to question. We're still not entirely sure of the specifics of this bomb, and whether they can deliver it. I realise that your argument indicates that the west should attack before these capabilities can be realised, but I think it's a little more complex than that.

Evidently Kim Jong Il doesn't like to be slighted. Perhaps if he was given a little more respect on the world stage he wouldn't be trying to buy it with nuclear weapons (I'm not saying he deserves this respect, just he wants it).

I realise it's uncommon to speculate on world politics from the perspective of the whims of an individual rather than the ambitions of a state or militia. But Kim Jong isn't a standard politician, nor have the actions of North Korea been the actions of a normal state.

My interpretation of the 'talk to us or we'll put bombs on weapons' is actually 'talk to us, we're a force to be reckoned with. You ignore us at your peril.'

Which, actually, is true. Perhaps North Korea wants a more prominent position on the world stage and wants to negotiate from a position of strength.

As for the final few comments... I think the world would be a healthier place if some elements of the christian faith weren't convinced the apocalypse was just a step on the road to bliss.

Boaz, thanks mate, for the recognition that in the long run China may not prove as cooperative as we would hope. As history goes, it is not so long ago, that headed by Britain, China was made to pay reparations for having its Boxer Rebellion rebel against the principle of global free trade at the time. Probably it was only the Communist revolution that stopped them paying off the debt to Western free trade.

You never know, China might be doing what Karl Marx called new economics - join and learn from the bourgoise capitalists till we are better than them at their own game then take them over in the name of socialism.

We possibly need to now keep an eye on Putin of Russia as well.

Possibly old Henry Kissinger might understand the tactics, seeing that history has had him working for both sides.

I,m not a strategic expert;

but i question this ethos: 'Second, it shows that the DPRK is a true loose cannon.'

To my way of thinking, DPRK have exhibited phenomonal restraint and discipline. Modelled on Mao no doubt. So, to that end they have arrived at where they are at. As I said to ol mate the other day, whilst we are open societies, they can come in and take what they want. Yet we can't go and readily look at them.

This leaves us in two places, isolated and ignorant. Ala Afhanaistan (i think). I have then to ask:

What makes the DPRK act all paranoid and schitzophrenic (ala Cambodia during the potty era?) Are they really on the loose, or contained? And finally, to follow the thread herein, 'you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you'; is Uncle Mac the real threat to DPRK (and can it be rescinded), or should we just let throphic cascade take its course?

Rev: 17:13

"Indirectly, though, Washington bears some of the responsibility."

I'd argue it bears a great deal more than 'some'. For 6 years Bush has goaded NK by nominating it as part of his axis of evil; by tossing out a Clinton agreement to supply reactor technology in return for NK dropping its nuclear program; by publicly stating he loathes Kim; and by saying NK can have either a nuclear bomb OR a future, but not both. Apart from this he still refuses to rule out invading NK were they to drop their nuclear program.

In any case they now have what they wanted, so thanks to the dimwit in charge of world diplomacy, they're safe.

Dear Gadget, that verse was probably one of the best you could have offered. Clearly you have some deep insights that I was not aware of :)
Well done.

TRTL I don't think it is bluster. Its only bluster if he is not pushed past the point of doing something drastic. He has clearly and unmistakebly said "If you do this or that, it is a declaration of war"...well.. so be it.
Call his bluff. but be ready to act (in a final/terminal way) if he is not bluffing.

NK is bound to China by 'treaty' so we would be possibly looking at ICBM threat to achieve this. Yes.. its a nightmare I know, but will it become less of a potential nightmare as time goes by ?
Personally, I think China would back down if push came to shove, their economy is too intertwined with the world.

Bennie.. that reactor technology was in fact 'extortion money' to keep the Korean thugs away from the clear path of Nuclear confrontation which we have now arrived at anyway.

Why did the US offer it ? "So NK would cease their Nuclear program."

Why did NK want a Nuclear program ? "So they can make Nuclear Weapons"

Why do they want Nuclear Weapons ? "So they can further blackmail the West in general and the USA in particular... to keep paying them the protection money they feel they deserve."

If they simply abandoned the Nuclear ambitions, and became good world citizens, the world would embrace them. but that.... THAT would threaten lil Kimmies private fiefdom... which he, the 'Great Leader' does not want. Well.. tough for him.

Does anyone truly think that Kim Jong Ill would even bother to think of human casualties in a war scenario ? Of course not. "I'll turn Seoul into a fire storm" or something.

This man and his army should be taken out, killed, executed, finished.

I've advised president Bush of this :) (and his office replied)

One of Kim’s main goals in so aggressively displaying North Korea’s missile capacity is to compel the United States to deal directly with him, thereby making his otherwise weakening state seem stronger. And the stronger Pyongyang appears to be, the better off it is in its crucial dealings with Beijing, which are what really matter to Kim.

To Kim’s sure dismay, the American response to his recent missile tests was a shrug.

The long-term success of America’s basic policy on the peninsula hinges on the willingness of South Koreans to make a significant sacrifice, at some point, for the sake of freedom in the North. But sacrifice is not a word that voters in free and prosperous societies tend to like. If voters in Western-style democracies are good at anything, it’s rationalizing their own selfishness—and it may turn out that the authoritarian Chinese understand the voters of South Korea’s free and democratic society better than the Americans. The North’s demise may be carefully managed by Beijing in such a way that the country will go from being a rogue nation to a de facto satellite of the Middle Kingdom—but one with sufficient contact with the South that the Korean yearning for a measure of reunification will be satisfied.

Here’s the common sense option (much more sensible than the military strike option): Robert Collins, a retired Army master sergeant and now a civilian area expert for the American military in South Korea, outlined for me seven phases of collapse in the North (currently, were in phase 3).

Phase One: resource depletion;

Phase Two: the failure to maintain infrastructure around the country because of resource depletion;

Phase Three: the rise of independent fiefs informally controlled by local party apparatchiks or warlords, along with widespread corruption to circumvent a failing central government;

Phase Four: the attempted suppression of these fiefs by the KFR (Kim Family Regime) once it feels that they have become powerful enough;

Phase Five: active resistance against the central government;

Phase Six: the fracture of the regime; and

Phase Seven: the formation of new national leadership