But compare the nature and focus of the lethal attacks. Have we done anything like (and this is just from memory):
Randomly, not as part of a campaign or anything, shelled an island.
Randomly torpedoed a naval vessel.
Brought down a civilian airliner as an act of terror.
Attempted to assassinate a country's leader and take out a good fraction of his cabinet with an indiscriminate bomb on foreign soil (foreign to both; and this is a debatable point, we certainly hit with 2,000 pound bombs any place we thought Saddam was during the war in the last decade. These details, including the lack of an all out hot war, are frequently used to label this act as terrorism, plus it wouldn't have made much difference to South Korea vs. taking out someone who'd been the Maximum Leader of a country for around 3 decades).
In the save vein as the above, we might debate their regular landing of commandos (especially given the fairly random violence they then engage in) and perhaps their regular naval skirmishes.
My bottom line is that they're batshit crazy in a way we simply aren't, whatever the bottom line is in those killed and wounded. Generally you can divine a fine grained rational cause and effect from our lethal actions, the DPRKs' only in a much broader way.
> North Korean news sources alleged that the North Korean actions, described as "a prompt and powerful physical strike", were in response to provocation from South Korea that had held an artillery exercise in the disputed waters south of the island
The US tried to assassinate Castro without even a declared war, they assassinated Gaddafi and have instigated various coups. On the other hand North and South Korea are actually at war.
United States brought down an Iranian civilian airliner.
North Korea is desperate and does terrible things but I don't think there is any reason to believe they are as completely irrational as everyone tries to paint them. One problem is that the extremely aggressive military actions by the United States often go unreported while far more benign military action by North Korea are disproportionately reported (e.g. moving missile launchers and missile tests a few months ago).
I am in no way saying North Korea is "better" than the United States or that they are not evil, only that there are significant distortions in the way each is viewed, especially by Americans.
The South Korean artillery exercise was routine, and if you accept North Korean sources, or find any equality between a shoot down made in error and a premeditated terrorist bombing, we have absolutely no common ground for discussion.
Are they dangerous? Yes. Do they commit terrorism? I wouldn't doubt it. Do they do stupid things sometimes? Sure. Are they insane? Almost certainly not and your examples do nothing to provide evidence to the contrary. Why even provide a justification for the shelling if they were insane? Do you really believe they do not try to act in their own self interest?
I haven't seen any evidence that the depiction that they-could-do-anything-next and are therefore immune to normal diplomacy and threats of force is anything but a caricature.
Again, I am not defending North Korea just pointing out distortions which impair making informed decisions and correctly interpreting world events.
That they commit terrible crimes isn't the question. This is:
When North Korean leaders make geo-political decisions do they act in their own self interest? As a state or even individuals?
The mad man caricature is an attempt to justify arbitrary action against North Korea, actions which would be much harder to justify against someone rational that could be influenced by carrots and sticks. It denies even the existence of motivations, however ill-intentioned those motivations may be.
Randomly, not as part of a campaign or anything, shelled an island.
Randomly torpedoed a naval vessel.
Brought down a civilian airliner as an act of terror.
Attempted to assassinate a country's leader and take out a good fraction of his cabinet with an indiscriminate bomb on foreign soil (foreign to both; and this is a debatable point, we certainly hit with 2,000 pound bombs any place we thought Saddam was during the war in the last decade. These details, including the lack of an all out hot war, are frequently used to label this act as terrorism, plus it wouldn't have made much difference to South Korea vs. taking out someone who'd been the Maximum Leader of a country for around 3 decades).
In the save vein as the above, we might debate their regular landing of commandos (especially given the fairly random violence they then engage in) and perhaps their regular naval skirmishes.
My bottom line is that they're batshit crazy in a way we simply aren't, whatever the bottom line is in those killed and wounded. Generally you can divine a fine grained rational cause and effect from our lethal actions, the DPRKs' only in a much broader way.