Q. Has North Korea joined the nuclear club?

Allah’s crunched the numbers, and probably not. Given the low yield of the explosion, the consensus seems to be that their test on Monday was a dud just like their recent missile test. Ain’t communism grand?

Q. So if North Korea isn’t a nuclear power, what are so we worried about? Or isn’t the worrying premature?

If things keep going the way they have been, North Korea will be a nuclear power. Soon. So we can postpone dealing with that reality or we can get a jump on the game and begin wrestling with it now.

Q.  I read somewhere that the low yield may be because North Korea tested a suitcase nuke. Hold me – I’m scared!

Oh gosh, not that suitcase nuke crap again. I’m pretty sure this theory came from Wretchard at the Belmont Club and considering he’s just about the best blogger ever not named den Beste, I should go easy here. But this is not a realistic concern. A suitcase nuke would represent the successful miniaturization of the technology. That would be a pretty stunning achievement for a country’s first shot out of the box. And even if it was supposed to be a suitcase nuke, the yield was still extremely low for a so-called suitcase nuke.

What’s more, suitcase nukes are much more myth than reality. If you want to feel better about this topic, read this Richard Miniter article on the subject. And for God’s sake, stop hiding under that desk! Man up!

Q. But what if the North Koreans have suitcase nukes and want to sell them to terrorists? That would be pretty bad, right?

Yes, that would be awful. But first of all, once again, the odds of North Korea having suitcase nukes are infinitesimal. Second of all, why would they go through billions of dollars developing nukes to sell them to an impoverished terror group that couldn’t afford to spend more than a couple of million for them? I know communists as a rule don’t understand the value of a buck, but they can’t be that dumb. What’s more, if a nuclear device exploded on American soil, it’s a pretty fair bet that many more nuclear bombs of American provenance would in short order explode around the remaining axis of evil and possibly elsewhere.

Q.  Do you think they know that?

I sure as hell hope so, and this is why James Baker happens to be right that talking to your enemies is a good thing. Let’s be straight about this – talking to your enemies in the manner that Jimmy Carter or Madeleine Albright did is a bad thing. A very bad thing.

But talking to your enemies the way Jim Baker talked to Tariq Aziz, where he promised that Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the first Gulf War would be met with a nuclear reprisal, is a very good thing.

The biggest failure of the Bush administration’s diplomatic efforts is that it has refused to talk to our enemies because talking during eight years of Clinton horsing around with Arafat and Albright clinking glasses with Kim Jong Il got a very bad name. But “talking” doesn’t have to be done the way they did it.

Besides, having a diplomatic presence in a country is great for intelligence gathering purposes.

Q. So you’re okay with Baker being back?

Eh. Never been a big fan of the guy. Most Jews, like Scott Johnson and me, remember all too well his hostility towards Israel. But you know what? I thought he did a much better job as Secretary of State than Rice or Powell did. And don’t even get me started on the Clinton-era pretenders.

Q. Here’s what I don’t get –

There’s a lot you don’t get.

Q. May I finish? Thank you. North Korea doesn’t seem intent on using their weapons on us. Iran on the other hand…Shouldn’t we be more concerned with Iran?

Yes. And the thought of a lasting union between the Mullahs and the atheist infidels in North Korea is laughable. Arguably, North Korea can be contained until it collapses.

Q. That’s an easy thing to blog while you’re sitting in Boston. Would you be so sanguine about things if you were blogging about this from Seoul?

No. North Korea’s dictator is a froot-loop, and his regime is pathetic. I’ll always consider the classic statement of the regime’s madness to be the press release that informed the public that “North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il enjoys golf, having shot multiple holes-in-one during his first try at the game. He reportedly aced five holes and finished 38 under par on the golf course.” Even Hugh Hewitt can’t golf like that! This isn’t the kind of regime that you enjoy the thought of pointing a nuclear dagger at your heart.

Q. So what’s the answer? War?

The Financial Times editorialized today that “war is unlikely because the US has little stomach for it.” But whether we have the stomach for it or not, there’s going to be a lot of war in our future. We didn’t have the stomach for 9/11 – it would have been nice if Al Qaeda had consulted us vís a vis our stomach situation before launching those attacks. Alas, maniacal enemies are usually indifferent to such concerns.

My biggest hope is that this serves as a teachable moment. The world is growing more dangerous by the day. That won’t stop until America stops it. There’s only one political party that has the insight and intellectual honesty to bring this message to the people. It’s time we get busy.

Q. So will we be at war with North Korea?

There’s a good chance that war there can be forestalled until the regime collapses. But we won’t have any such luck with the Middle Eastern lunatics who devote every moment when they’re not killing each other to plotting our demise.

Count on it.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.