The LAT even acknowledges that the NorKs are bullies and then fail to draw the conclusion that anyone learns when they are six years old. Maybe they think we should respond by flooding the North Koreans with a saturation attack of Guidance Counselors and Social Workers. What would the Geneva Conventions say about anything that cruel and unusual?
Is Obama deliberately trying to engage in a calculated policy to convince the members of the Armed Forces that the country is so feckless that it is not worth fighting for? No one wants to be the last person killed in a war. Who wants to be the first person killed for Obama? If he can convince the professional officer corps to either retire if at Field/Senior grade or quit if at Junior grade then he will have no barriers to his plan to restructure both the military and America.
There are links from North Korea to the New Party to ANSWER and Acorn to Obama.
What the law is that the sheriff is supposed to be enforcing is a predicate. You say
b) warn the creep that if he goes past a certain bright line he will be shot, law or no lawbut the law is the bright line. If North Korea's actions are not considered sufficiently threatening to justify a response under current International Law then we can debate whether the law needs to be changed, that is the bright line redrawn. Under current law the NorKs are in violation of both Security Council resolutions and of the 1953 Cease Fire. The problem is therefor worse than in the example of the sheriff and the creep. The grounds for arresting or shooting the offender exist but the sheriff is afraid to go in after him and the neighbors are afraid that if they do then they will have to feed all the starving children the creep keeps in his basement.