"A North Korean army spokesman reiterated that the country was no longer bound by the armistice signed at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War because Washington had ignored its responsibility as a signatory by drawing Seoul into the anti-proliferation effort." (More here) (hat tip Amaros)
For what? War.
For who? Well, who is funding the NORK nuke program? Iran.
Has Obama apologized yet to Kim Jong Ill, or is he still hiding in the men's room?
Amaros tells me John Bolton said that Iran is funding the NORK nuke program -- will post that video as soon as it goes live (send me the link).
UPDATE: Much thanks to Amaros for the video.
North Korea defied the world last night by launching a third missile, following two similar tests earlier in the day.
The rockets were fired the day after the communist state exploded a nuclear device as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb.
The actions drew strong criticism from around the world and calls for tough new sanctions against the regime.
But experts questioned whether a new UN resolution would have any effect on Korea's nuclear ambitions.
All three launches were reported to be short-range missiles which can hit targets up to 80 miles away.
As the crisis grew, U.S. President Barak Obama assured South Korean president Lee Myung-bak of Washington's commitment to defend his country on the long- divided peninsula.
Emergency sessions of the UN Security Council drew up new sanctions aimed at persuading North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il to rejoin talks on ending his nuclear programme.
But existing sanctions are regularly flouted and the country is so poor it relies on aid, mainly from China, to feed its 23million people.
Diplomats believe the explosion, which prompted an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, was a calculated attempt by Pyongyang to destabilise the region and shore up its hardline regime.
But the isolated nation appeared to have overreached itself when even China and Russia joined in with the criticism.
Mr Brown swiftly denounced the move as 'erroneous, misguided and a danger to the world'. The Prime Minister said: 'This act will undermine prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula and will do nothing for North Korea's security.
'The international community will treat North Korea as a partner if it behaves responsibly. If it does not then it can expect only renewed isolation
Mr Obama said the nuclear test constituted an act of 'blatant defiance' of the UN Security Council, a violation of international law.
The U.S. President added: 'North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile programme, constitute a threat to international peace and security.'
In a White House address the President pledged to work with allies around the world to 'stand up to' North Korea. Tensions had already been running high over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
It was censured by the UN last month for launching a rocket - widely seen as a test for a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead - in breach of a missile test ban.
The state-controlled Korean Central News Agency confirmed that the regime had 'successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defence'.
South Koreans reacted to the terrifying news by staging angry street protests against their Stalinist northern neighbour.
Western intelligence analysts and diplomats believe the explosion was designed to attract the attention of the Obama administration.
But it is more likely to lead to further isolation, by halting a recent thawing of relations with the West.
The U.S. had taken North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism after Pyongyang allowed some inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: 'The test is a provocation that will prevent others from dealing with North Korea as a responsible partner.'
Foreign Office and U.S. State Department experts believe that the blast is
evidence that the hardline military in North Korea is asserting itself as the
health of dictator Kim Jong-Il declines.
While the leadership is hard to penetrate and its motives are difficult to read, it is thought that Army chiefs want to reassert their influence before a successor is chosen to Kim, whose position has been on under question since he suffered a stroke last year.
Others think nuclear brinkmanship is a way for Kim to reassert his iron grip on power to ensure that one of his sons is well placed to succeed him.
China, the hermit state's regional benefactor, said it was resolutely opposed to the test, but it was thought to remain opposed to punitive sanctions.
Its foreign ministry said: 'The Chinese side vehemently demands North Korea abides by its denuclearisation promises, stop any actions which may worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks process.
'The Chinese government calls on all sides to calmly and appropriately deal with the situation.'
The U.N. Security Council condemned the test and is working on a new resolution, but analysts say China is unlikely to support anything tough.
For China, the more immediate risk may be serious rupture inside the impoverished state, which could spark a flood of North Korean refugees across its border.
UPDATE: Melanie Phillips has a great piece: THE FRUITS OF APPEASEMENT(hat tip Davod)
Not only is America now paying the price of its past defeatism over North Korea, but Obama is now ensuring that the US is weakened even more actively and catastrophically. The insanity of his overall strategy is set out here by James Lewis, who rightly suggests that Obama is simply the very worst person to be sitting in the White House right now. And as John Bolton again wrote in the New York Times:
... the Obama administration is seriously weakening both our strategic offensive and defensive capacity. The Defense Department budget proposes major cuts in missile defense programs, returning to an emphasis both in operational and diplomatic terms on ‘theater’ missile defense (mainly for defending deployed military forces), rather than ‘national’ missile defense (for shielding America’s population from missile attack).
... The Pentagon also proposes ending financing for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a key to substituting safe, dependable warheads for the ones now aging... The administration is also putting new emphasis on negotiating conventions against the ‘arms race’ in outer space, which would undercut America's current substantial advantage above the earth...
Unhappily, the administration is pushing Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a ‘non-nuclear-weapons state,’ meaning Israel would have to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Iran and others will welcome this, given their repeated demands for the same result. Today’s real proliferation threat, however, is not Israel, but states like Iran and North Korea that become parties to the alphabet soup of arms control treaties and then violate them with abandon. Without robust American reactions to these violations--not apparent in administration thinking--more will follow.
But does Obama care about any of that? As Con Coughlin wrote in the Telegraph:
The naivety of the West’s approach to North Korea was best summed up by Stephen Bosworth, Mr Obama’s special envoy to the region, who declared he was ‘relatively relaxed’ that the American-led six-nation talks aimed at bringing Pyongyang to heel have achieved virtually nothing... If the Obama administration is relaxed about this failure, then I suppose it will take an equally sanguine view of North Korea’s attempts to export its bomb-making expertise to other rogue states, such as Iran and Syria.
Indeed, after Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear facility there was evidence of North Korean involvement in that forbidden programme. North Korea is also selling nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan as well as Iran. Yet Obama appears ‘relaxed’ about everyone’s nukes except Israel's– the one country that will never use them except to prevent itself from being annihilated by the countries Obama is appeasing.
Naivety – or the profound idiocy of malice?