Read my lips, "No new tests!"

Dear Leader says "sorry" to China for that "whole nuclear bomb thing, "Yo man it was a crazy day. Won't happen again bro'." Quick aside, if I were going to write a letter to Kim, would I start it, "Dear Dear Leader?" Anyway, he also say's he won't be testing anymore bombs. Not to be a big ol' cynic, but as I recal India only had one test, as did Pakistan so what did he really give up? Once you've tested you have lots of data and proof that at least something is going right. Assuming he only has a few nukes, wouldn't we want him testing them to get rid of 'em? Kind of like asking someone with a six-shooter to prove the gun works by firing it in the air. Pull it off six times and you don't need to shoot it out of his hand.

Also, an interesting piece from Newsweek writer John Barry (who also had a heckuva jump shot) about why using military force against Kim is a bad idea. I put it here because I think it helps illustrate the US' tactical position. The way I see it, either attack now before he's fully nuclear (may already be too late) or accept that only diplomacy will work in the future (which really means we agree to be forever blackmailed by North Korea). Its probably an easy, but sterile, analysis. Figure out how much that blackmail will cost us over the next several decades v. the cost of attacking now. I do think you have to throw in some kind of probability adjusted cost of him selling nukes to Iran or some terrorist as well. It's interesting, Kim puts W's "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" doctrine to the extreme test. A fight there, according to Barry, would be massive, but a fight here (meaning nuclear attack by an enemy who has NuKes) would be even more catastrophic from a US stand-point.

Life long blackmail with the possibility that some NuKes get into the wrong hands v. a very expensive and high casualty fight now. Not sure I like either scenario. We have to find a way to change the game.