This makes me nervous and I fear that Kim Jung Un will have to do something big in order to save face. I hope we make him feel that he has a non-violent way to posture for his people as that's really what this is all about: posturing.
Honestly I don't get this sentiment. NK isn't some rationalistic actor. The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve. This goes beyond mere saving face, or diplomacy. This is simply about maintaining and expanding power. That is sometimes you need to be confrontational. Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill. Preferably before it's too late. What else is their develop…
I think they are, from their perspective. First, non-rational actors don't survive to establish and hold political power, for years (generations for the Kim family) in dictatorships where failure means death. Kim Jong-un's behavior would be madness in a democracy and where we care about fellow citizens, but it's successful (by his terms) and makes sense in a dictatorship.
Second, consider the history of U.S. regime change from an outside perspective:
1) Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program; the U.S. said it did, invaded, and overthrew the regime.
2) Libya did have a minor nuclear weapons program. In an agreement with the U.S. (and maybe with others too) it gave up the program. Soon after, the U.S. bombed the Libyan military and helped the opposition overthrow the regime.
3) Iran had a very capable nuclear weapons program. It gave up the program in a treaty with the U.S. Now the U.S. is at high risk to renege on the treaty, continues to threaten Iran, and continues to talk about regime change.
It seems that no matter what you do, what the U.S. says, or what international law is, if the U.S. doesn't like you then it pursues regime change. That's the Russian point of view, too, to an extent. It's openly discussed that perhaps the only way to protect yourself is to own nuclear weapons.
(As a side note, when people question the value of following international law, this is it: If the U.S. reliably followed international law, NK could trust that a deal to give up its weapons would be followed and others wouldn't feel the need to acquire them. On the other hand, if the U.S. withdraws from the Iran agreement, why would NK - or anyone - bother even discussing an agreement? So they can disarm and be destroyed?)
> Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill.
And sometimes you need to stop being Bush and start being (name your favorite peace-maker). I'm not sure what that proves - sometimes one tactic is appropriate, sometimes another, and often a a completely different approach. Also, this situation does not at all seem similar to WWII.