1) Regardless of whether the NK regime fundamentally is a rational actor (which I'm not convinced of: the paranoia seems genuine, and the purges, labour camps and secrecy absolutely are genuine), practically speaking, what's the difference between a state which acts insane, and one which actually is insane? We have no diplomatic channels through which to gauge their private intentions, so from a foreign policy perspective, all we have to go on is their public behaviour. They are unpredictable. Whether this is a facade or not, it's how they've behaved for decades now.

The essential difference between a state that acts insane and one that pretends to act insane is that a state that acts insane will do so in a calculated effort to make others believe they are insane, but when "push comes to shove" will act in a manner that promotes self-preservation above all else.

That's the critical difference between North Korea being a threat, and North Korea being all about posturing to reach a specific goal.

2) I still think a distinction can be drawn here. You're arguing about the political reasons why the West has an interest in emphasising the threat NK poses; I'm arguing that NK should be taken seriously, and not dismissed. I'm not sure whether our positions are incompatible: I think we differ on where we place our emphasis, rather than on our interpretations of the situation.

I do agree that North Korea should be taken seriously, but not on the issues that the media focuses on all the time... You're right, the critical difference for me is one of emphasis.

That being said, if you like political philosophy I think you owe it to yourself to listen to Hardcore History. :) Carlin is a "context junkie" and his constant framing of historical events is very entertaining and informative.

Cheers. :)