Josh Blue said:
The same one that imposes food sanctions on the other to prevent that from being possible ??? ;)
I'm pretty certain the US hasn't imposed food sanctions on anybody. I do accept that other sanctions sometimes have what you and I would consider undesirable consequences, maybe these are desirable/foreseeable for the US, but the fact is when you want to bring change you need a stick not a feather. Unsettle the population you unsettle the leaders, I don't think that is a strategy that would work in North Koreas case.
Is it acceptable for the US to pick an choose who should have nuclear weapons? Yes. Ideological stances around self determination and fair play have to be put to one side when we are talking of these weapons. We already have two countries (India/Pakistan) that have nuclear weapons and indicated they were prepared to use them in their spat of words a couple of years ago. Iran wants and will probably get, and whilst we are deeply distrustful of that regime I think the bigger concerns are it will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. With North Korea they have said they would strike pre-emptively, they are unpredictable, they have a track record of firing weapons (SK navy vessel sunk, cross border shelling), if we let them get too far down the line they will bring us to the brink...their people are starving they will not revolte, the US will limit their ability to produce weapons, but like Iran they are far enough along that it is seemingly unstoppable. North Korea needs to come out of the cold but the regime know for that to happen it will be the end for them, they don't have the luxury of time, their strategy seems to me to be geared towards using the bomb to hold the world to ransom. The question is can the US live with that.