Time is running out. NK and the diminishing tenability of globalism.

If the idea is to stop NK getting a deliverable bomb the clock is at about five minutes to midnight.

Diplomacy and sanctions are not working and will not work.

If there is a military move to be made the time is here or almost here.

Trump calls North Korea 'dangerous' and 'great threat' after overnight nuclear test

MSNBC live now says official sources say evidence is consistent with the NK claim what they have now is a totally successful test of a hydrogen bomb.

In a very short time it will be time to get used to being in NK's nuclear crosshairs, if we don't take a military option that heads that off.

And then we will all have to think again about whether Trump's campaign position that we ought to drop our alliances with SK and Japan and let them get nukes, if they want, to defend themselves, was all that crazy.

The alternative is to let Seoul and Tokyo hide behind Chicago and Saint Louis, making our own cities targets of NK nukes in case of a new war on the peninsula.

Which is more and which is less acceptable?

Throughout all this, and reaching all the way back to the 2016 campaign, it has emerged that the policy of the Dems at MSNBC and CNN is every bit as globalist as the most hard-core neo-cons in DC, with even the peaceniks among them joining in the vigorous bashing of Bozo's America First initiatives by Hillary's neocon and globalist allies.

These media libs have been all along, and are today as well, supporting all of our Cold War alliances, vigorous expansion of NATO, and continued anti-proliferation.

The difference - the crucial difference - being that the commitment of MSNBC and CNN is to nothing but bluff, while the commitment of the neocons, though perhaps also ultimately questionable, is at least in some surface respects more genuine.

As evidence I cite the neocon calls for US arms for Ukrainian forces fighting a small but hot war with Russia, greater deployment of US forces to NATO countries on Russia's very border, and military action against NK.

So there are really three alternatives, as far as the military side of globalism goes.

Republican/neocon interventionist: Continue and expand our Cold War alliances with public promises and the real intention of going to war to defend our allies.

Democratic/liberal interventionist: Continue and expand our Cold War alliances with public promises but no real intention of going to war to defend our allies.

Buchananite/Bannonite/peacenik/isolationist/erstwhile left anti-imperialist: Publicly renounce our Cold War alliances and back away.

Asked less than an hour ago by a reporter whether the US would be taking military action against NK Trump replied "We'll see".

In my opinion, the rise of a nuclear NK and the further proliferation of nukes to other "Axis of nuts" regimes as dangerous, crazy, and inimical as they are provides increasing power to the main argument against continued American globalism, real or faux.

Continued American globalism at best limits the threat posed to us by proliferating and escalating regional conflicts, nuclear or not, only by increasing the threat of a global thermonuclear war having the US among its first targets.

More and more as the nuclear club comes to include ever more irresponsible and threatening regimes, that will not seem like or be a good trade.

Particularly given the obvious truth that regional conflicts do not inevitably involve us, or anyone at all, in anything remotely like global general war, anyway.

Politicians and pundits pointing to the two World Wars and to the Cold War as refutations of withdrawal from globalism are totally full of wild blueberry muffins.