True, but it seems clear that it is better for the world to have the
NorK's in some sort of agreement then have them misbehaving outside.
While limited they cheated a little bit here and there, and still got
aid. While not bound by any agreed upon limits they tested two nuclear
weapons. I think the evidence is that George W. Bush's decision to
withdrawn from our agreement with North Korea- which led to the two
nuclear tests- was a mistake, and that while we need to monitor and
look at their behavior, it is the better option.
They are malicious, evil people running the country. But the best of a
set of bad solutions is to wait them out and try to keep them from
getting too dangerous in the meantime, because the more fissile
material they produce the worse off the world is. (Military force was
not an option even before the nuclear test, because of the
vulnerability of Seoul.) China would prefer to keep them around as a
client state rather than have a united Korea on their border, so it is
not clear that they are nearly as vulnerable to regime change as Cuba
or Venezuela are.
: Not suggesting any US involvement in regime change in either
country, just suggesting that domestic unrest/poor health among the
aging leadership generation of those two countries is going to be a
major problem for them, whereas NorK has demonstrated a reasonable
ability to handle succession: they are on the third generation of
leader now, which is exceptional for a authoritarian state.