Wednesday digest II

- Although many observers are now suggesting that the North Korean nuclear test was a tempest in a teapot (with one Harvard scientist suggesting that they're "an embarassment to the nuclear club"), a few humble observations this evening.

First, North Korea has been at this for decades. What can really be done, outside of fomenting regime change through things like coups and assassinations, when a rogue state attempts to acquire nukes? Sanctions don't work because they punish the people who are unfortunate enough to live under such dictatorial governments. Bombing their facilities? Another option, yes, but in these hyper-sensitive times, what leader is actually going to step up to the plate to roll the dice on such a choice given how divided the West is on what is and what isn't morally justifiable?

What I would offer in terms of contextual pieces are both this short article by Andrew Coyne on where we stand now and then this more lengthy article by Robert Kaplan on the longer term view of things.

Perhaps, at the end of the day, we have to just get used to our enemies having the bomb. What that means more than anything, in my opinion, is that we need to be ready to close ranks if necessary to face a common threat if it ever gets to that point. Hopefully, it never will, but the security of the West depends on our willingness to defend a cohesive set of agreed-upon values should the sabre-rattling ever move beyond mere fireworks demonstrations by deranged psychotics like Kim Jong-Il. This could mean that we talk about issues like missile defense shields without chalking everything up to some sinister military-industrial complex arrangement; we talk about the virtue of military service without suspecting that those who join are somehow mentally unstable; and we recognize that providing security for the citizenry is truly the first role of government.

Anyways, that's my two cents' for one night.