Since Silly Sally is such an expert in international relations, the theory of Realism should not be lost on her. Basically, it says that nation states will attempt to mass resources (economic, military, etc.) in order to increase their power, and that relations between states will be determined by that level of power. It also states that the international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions. States must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.

The inherent and very real flaw in this system is that nations with power get to make up the rules. That’s just how it is, and Elias doesn’t like it. No, until he gets his wish of a New World Order with One-World Government, states will continue to be in competition with each other and will only be able to negotiate on a level equal to that of their relative power.

Why do you say "at least one side [has] the balls to try things they wouldn't have minus the nuke capability". Why is that Pakistan is the only one in playing a game of chicken with its nuclear insurance policy?

According to you logic, nuclear capabilities give regimes incentives to act in far more aggressive ways. Why aren't the Indians doing so? Shouldn't they be sending its intelligence operative abroad to Pakistani consulate around the world to blow up and terrorize. In fact, it more or less been confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons. They've got a military ace-in-the-hole that would allow for them to take far more greater actions against its enemies in the region, but yet it doesn't.

You present a facile and almost persuasive theory. Its only problem is that it only explains the situations that stack up well for your argument and is utterly useless in other important instances.

"With nukes, the North has less to fear from a US military threat, and it can increase its use of brinkmanship to try to gain more concessions."

Alright, USinKorea, let's grant for a moment your contention here. If this is the North's true intention then why are they doing all this right now? Why not have not signed on to the NPT, develop the capabilities, and start projecting and maneuvering in their region back 10, 20, even 30 years ago?

Let me answer for you. Because back 10, 20, 30 years ago, the US maintained a deterrence posture not a compellence posture towards the North. The North had little to fear from a US strike, plus they had superpower patronage. Regime secure from external threat=no need for nukes.

You cite the instance of Iran and it's desire to develop nuclear weapons. How it's doing this simply to have greater projection ability in the region. Again, the question that must be asked is why now and not before? Why not have made a serious attempt to develop a nuclear capability when it was engaged in a serious conflict with the US backed Saddam Hussein? Why not in the years immediately preceeding the '79 revolution so as to have ironclad insurance against any possible internal or external threat?

In the case of Pakistan, you seem to think that recent actions it has taken are solely a function of it's nuclear capability. Fact is, Pakistan, particularly its ISI has been engaged in the sort aggressive behavior you cite long before its detonation of a nuclear device. Furthermore, it's difficult to say that "Pakistan" or the "Pakistani gov't" is engaging in or coordinating the sort of activities you're talking about. There is a clear difference between "Pakistan", "Pakistani gov't", and the Pakistani ISI. The aggressive actions your seeing being taken right now in South Asia are probably elements of the ISI that are under little control from central authority. That's why they act so aggressive. Not because of some nuclear capability that they have no control over, it's because there is so little oversight of them, their contacts, and funding.

To your historical example of countries acting irrationally, namely that of Japan in 1941: Think about why they attacked USinKorea and I don't think you'd being saying the Japanese were so misguided: In the 1930's and 1940's, Japan is expanding it's empire in order to achieve autarky and hence is in need of natural resources. The US does not like this hence began to impose imbargos on Japan. Seeing the imbargos as a threat to its national security let alone its autarky, Japan does what any country facing a similar situation would do: it attacks the very source that is preventing it from getting the necessary resources it needs to maintain its national security. The Israelis did it when Arab nations attempted to cut off the Straits of Tiran during the Six Day's War, the Americans did it under Bush I when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

I fail to see how when Japan does it it's "irrational" but when the US and her allies do the same exact thing in very similar circumstances it's called "acting in the national interest".

Getting back to North Korea, the same logic applies: The US makes promises with the North under the '93 agreement, fails on its part to live up to certain parts of the agreement, the US makes bellicose statements about how the North is part of the "Axis-of-Evil", goes and invades the Arab third of that axis and then acts flabbergasted that the other two-thirds would be developing capabilities in the ensuing seconds.

The hypocrisy displayed is truly astounding.

I skimmed quickly and skipped him after that…

One thing I don't hear people saying, here or in the news and think tanks, is how NK and other nations want nukes as a deterrent – yes – but to use such deterrents to give them a room to maneuver in their regions.

Iran wants nukes to keep the US off – so it can make moves to become the regional leader above Saudi Arabia – and to make moves against Israel.

Pakistan just showed us it understands what moves it can try thanks to the fear its nukes – and even fear of its collapse and the nukes being taken by rogue elements – give it.

NK cut down on such stunning provocations in the 1990s — after it lost the fear factor the Soviet Union and China together gave it — and as it suddenly found it had to have more cooperation from the rest of the world (the US, Japan, EU, and so on) to survive.

With nukes, the North has less to fear from a US military threat, and it can increase its use of brinkmanship to try to gain more concessions.

And this type of geopolitical game is always dangerous. You never know when the emotional and other factors involved in button pushing will result in things getting out of control.

On the issue of rogue regimes acting irrationally — if we scale back the definition from words like "desperate" – history is filled with nations making stupid decisions – which they might have convinced themselves were smart:

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they thought that was a swell idea that would work out in the end for them – but Hitler was pissed and Churchill danced a jig.

Germany invading Russia to open a two front war was also deemed rather stupid by people at the time and later.

That is what generally happens: for whatever reason, leaders of nations often make big mistakes that seem like a fine idea to them at the time.

I'd also note, in both Japan and Germany's cases, they thought they were strong enough to handle any negative consequences of their acts — they thought they could pull it off. Why? Because of their strength.

Which gets back to why 2nd and 3rd and lower tier powers want nukes: It gives them the power, they think, to stand off 1st tier nations – leaving them free to make moves against neighbors.

With India and Pakistan, you might have had a more true Cold War development — two powers locking horns and developing nukes out of that confrontation, but you still end up in a situation where the nukes gives at least one side the balls to try things they wouldn't have minus the nuke capability.

That is the message Pakistan just sent the United States.

Frankly speaking, the United States (for all its supposed evils) is a very stabilizing force in the world, and it's pretty scary to imagine who would fill the void in her absence.

Well that’s one way to go about it. Impractical and silly to be sure, but one way nevertheless.

I’ve got a better solution however. If the US is really serious about stopping the proliferation of nuclear capabilities then perhaps it should be the one to draw down significantly its own nuclear capabilities. I mean think about it: What credibility does the US really have to tell other countries they can’t have but a single or few nuclear weapons when the United States itself maintains a nuclear arsenal literally unmatched or unsurpassed by any combination of nations throughout the world? Such an act would be the first step towards the sort of confidence building measures (another IR concept you should probably bone up on Rob) that would help ameliorate this problem.

Furthermore, why this visceral distaste for an “even keel” dynamic when it come to security relations? What the hell makes you think that the US has this special prerogative to have unipolar military dominance throughout the globe? You seem to forget that countries attempting to develop nuclear capabilities are sovereign countries just like the US and have no desire to have that sovereignty sacrificed on the altar of some DOD Klingon’s ideological fantasies. There not going to collapse their right to national self-defense in order to make the United States feel that it’s still the big dog in the alley.

Yes I am Rob. India acquired nuclear capabilities in order to deter Pakistan. Pakistan in turn acquired their own nuclear capabilities in order to have a counter-deterrence mechanism against India's nuclear capabilities. The North wants nuclear capabilities in order to deter against a possible US pre-emptive strike.

Again Rob, I implore you to go and review your international relation theory 101. Deterrence vs. Compellence. You need to know these concepts, because given the drivel you're writing you clearly don't.

"Can we trust a leader who would do this (citing a WAPO story about N. Korean refugees) with nukes? According to some whackos, yes we can."

Rob, you once asked me if English was my second language. I should ask the same of you. Did you even read and comprehend what the main point of that article was? Did it even make a link that the DPRK regime was explicitly using its nukes in order oppress its people. Are they pointing these nukes at their people in order to starve them? From the comment you wrote this is the distinct impression I'm getting.

But let's just for a moment follow you train of thought here. According to you Kim Jong-Il is the totally off the wall, insane leader who cannot be trusted in anyway, let alone with a nuclear device. Given the DPRK regime's long history of human rights violations, acts of terrorism, saber-rattling, and general undemocratic ways, the civilized world should do every in its power to stop these mad-men from the North from acquiring the world's ultimate doomsday device.

Fine, if that's the standard we're going to apply then the world should be making a serious concerted effort in disarming the United States of its nuclear capabilities. After all, does the United States not violate human rights (Gitmo, extraordinary rendition)? Does the US not commit aggressive pre-emptive military aggression (Iraq)?

If there's any country in the world who has utilized its nuclear capability for the sake of pressuring other nations in the world to go its way, it is the United States. And yet, after all is said and done it is North Korea that the likes of Rob are worried about. And he says that I'm in way over my head.