This article goes along with what we were talking about in class. The Director-general of IAEA has urged the UN to take action against North Korea for "violation of international agreements". The Director says that failure to take any action action against North Korea sends a "signal to rogue nations that they are free to acquire nuclear capability without worrying about the consequences." He isn't clear about what action he expects the international community to take, other than he wants North Korea to return to the Non-proliferation agreement. I think the U.S. has to do something, but our "war on terror" in Iraq really handcuffs what we can do with North Korea. Talks haven't worked and North Korea seems pretty hellbent on developing nuclear weapons and, while they may have no intention of using them, as the Director-general said, it does set a dangerous precent to "rogue nations" interested in developing nuclear weapons. Like Professor Larsen said in class, I think the U.S. has to weigh their options, none of which are good. Neither eliminating North Korea's weapons program nor allowing them to further develop it are desirable and both have to the potential to cause a loss of life. But if it was so necessary to remove a dictator like Sadam Hussein, why isn't it as important to remove Kim Song Il who has seen millions of people die under his rule in the last decade. Do any of you think that talks will reach a long term solution?