It's just that, tree hugging appeasing liberal that I am, I'm very leery of the tendency to downplay the real threat North Korea poses. Kim Jong Il makes Saddam look like a common sense accessible guy with his finger on the pulse of the world; I don't think we need to go through each five DefCons for him to launch a nuke or two. On the right day, indigestion would likely be reason enough, though in all honesty I still think it more likely he'd hold Tokyo hostage than try a much riskier and more difficult strike on L.A. (though it is within the extreme range of his longest range missiles. ) Of course, the far shorter time to target reduces the chances of AEGIS bringing it down from "small" to "negligible. "

Believe it or not, I knew about the atomic artillery (nasty piece of fission only work, but I've got pictures from a test firing in one of my antiquated Encyclopedia Americans, either from the "Strategy" article or the "Nuclear Weapons" one. ) I guess I was being a little snarky, sorry, but you take my point: Just because the detonations were far less than the Japan bombs doesn't mean they were a fizzle (though it does raise the possibility they were just a bluff with a LOT of high explosives. ) I agree with your logic to a point but come to the opposite conclusion: It's not so much that the greater North Korean nuclear threat to America and our allies means we shouldn't invade Iran as that we SHOULD invade (or otherwise disarm) North Korea. All the talk about the missiles pointed at Seoul just boils down to "we should wait until those missiles have nuclear warheads before we act. "

And quite honestly that logic is applicable to the REAL power behind North Korea as well. A conflict is coming, and the only reason to delay an inevitable conflict is in the belief you will grow stronger, your enemy will grow weaker, or both. I believe China has delayed and is delaying the conflict for just that reason, and that they are correct to do so; why wait until they have a better chance of defeating us?