Without China to prop them up, North Korea is a nothing.
However, Iran and India seem to be great friends of the Norks, so....

GWB (Bush II) talked about the "Axis of Evil". 

Fifteen years ago, President George W. Bush labeled Iraq, North Korea, and Iran the "Axis of Evil." This comment was roundly mocked. It was largely forgotten after the war in Iraq and the persistent insurgency. Because two of the countries are still dominating current events and OpsLens analysts described North Korea as the location of a future war, it is worth revisiting the key phrase and how it exhibited wisdom and foresight.

In the 2002 State of the Union Address, just a few months after Sept. 11, Bush described North Korea as "a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens." In regards to Iran, he said they "aggressively pursue these weapons and export terror." Liberals blasted this concept as a ridiculous comparison to the Axis powers in World War II and described it as an attempt by a war cowboy to argue for the Iraq war.

Critics pointed out this phrase didn't accurately reflect the hatred that Iran and Iraq shared for each other after their long war in the 1980s. But the original Axis powers didn't like each other either and would have likely fought each other after winning the initial war.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/revisiting-the-axis-of-evil-15-years-after-george-w-bush-coined-the-term/article/2622576

Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vnezuela, Cuba, etc are NOT our friends.  They probably never will be.  The best we can do is to show them that we are strong, and will combat any deed they do that is not in our best interest, or is a threat.  Appeasement will never work, as it just shows our weakness, which the DO NOT respect.  (See Obama)

It would take very little to collapse North Korea but the real risk would be what comes next.
A unified Korea would quickly emerge but would China or India, or Iran for that matter, let such a thing exist?

Sounds like Iraq.  We go and replace these dictators that we've been working with previously, for years, then have no viable exist scenario in sight.  Same thing happened in Libya.  It seems our leadership plays checkers, not chess. 

Just read an unattributed quote:  "Liberals are like high-maintenance girlfriends.  You're always wrong, and nothing is ever enough."

Boy, tell me about it.  I have put up with both.  I was able to act on one of them though. 

The establishment Republicans are as bad or worse than the Democrats.  They like the status quo.  They need to go.

Google's relevance algorithms have a liberal bias? If they can manage that, maybe they could program in Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics?

Well they do it somehow because they also block anything positive related to the NRA, or legal ownership, and use of firearms.  So do many other search engines, and sites. 

What I think is more relevant is that women in general, throughout history, have not been the main breadwinners; men have.  By biology or by culture, men's overriding concern has always been, can he support and protect his family?  This leaves men much more knowledgeable and concerned about caring for a thriving economy, and with a greater innate understanding of the need to maintain access to physical resources and to project strength to potential enemies.

Women on the other hand have a better sense of empathy.  I think it comes from the need to get inside the head of helpless infants, and it transfers to anyone. This isn't a bad thing at all. But it does leave them vulnerable to manipulation by those who would use social causes as a means to gain power. Because men tend to think more linearly, they seem better able to predict unintended consequences than women, who often are too focused on current suffering, and unable to look to the long run.

I'll bring up prohibition again as the perfect example. It was women who led the dry movement, because they saw real suffering caused by alcohol, but they completely miscalculated that the consequences of banning alcohol would be even worse.  However, once those terrible consequences came to be, to their credit, it was again women who led the movement to repeal prohibition.  Women had to see for themselves the suffering prohibition had caused before they "got it".  It's just too bad the whole country had to be jerked back and forth in the process by these females, and we are still left with a bad template for dealing with substance abuse.

This all makes a lot of sense Rush.  The unintended consequences, and the effects beyond looking at just the surface of issues, is an important consideration.  Look at at LBJ's "Great Society", and "War on Poverty".  It all sounds good on it surface, and while the purpose seemed benign, charitable, and altruistic, the results have been cruel, and destructive.  The real purpose was power, and votes, and the poor were just used as fodder.   

My grandparents, and parents lived through the Great Depression, then WWII.  They knew the value of a dollar, and real hardship.  It molded them to be pragmatic, practical people who knew how to survive, and what was really important.  Have we as a society moved so far away from practicality that we no longer recognize it?

The pussy-fi-cation of America is truly the child of attention whore liberal women.
They can't compete - or believe they can't compete - on a level playing field with men, so they create this state of permanent PMS to cover their failures and destroy those that succeed.

I have long said that women essentially have taken over the agenda, and also have feminized society, and men to our collective detriment.  Women run education for the most part, and that has helped neuter boys.  When I meet a Millennial or younger person today that "gets it", I am truly shocked.