[BalefireX]

Mutually Assured Destruction does not depend on equally armed powers - it merely reflects the concept that the best way to protect a population is to assure that any attack will be met with a comparative attack. While obviously the United States would not be using nuclear weapons against North Korea, the only way for a relatively small world power to make an equal strike against a major world power like the US would be to use Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Weapons.

If the US went into North Korea to oust Kim Jong Il, whether with conventional or Nuclear arms, their goal would be the destruction of the North Korean government. What would Kim Jong Il have to lose by striking a nuclear blow against the United States if he was already faced with a life in prison or a probable death sentence?

MAD is often viewed in a Cold War mentality between two big superpowers, but the concept is ancient - war is avoided by the belief that what could be gained is not worth risking what would be lost.

I'm not saying that every container entering the country can be checked - even if they were, nuclear weapons could still be smuggled in by boat, plane, via Mexico or Canada, etc. What I am saying is that invading North Korea when they have the deterrent of Nuclear Weapons is foolhardy at best.