Kim Jong-un Credit:AP This is a different proposition to a threat to bomb the island. Of course, it presupposes a degree of accuracy that may be more hope than reality. Second, North Korea is always careful to avoid threatening a first strike on the US or any country. As the director of the Korean Studies Institute at the University of Southern California, David Kang, told The Washington Post: "The big thing we keep missing about North Korea is that their threats are always the second half of a sentence, and we ignore the first half. North Korea consistently says, 'If the US attacks us first, we will fight back'. The only thing that gets reported in the US media is the second clause, not the first. So their comments are clearly deterrent in nature, and the Guam 'threat' was exactly along those lines. So we always overhype the North Korean threat." What's true of the US media is equally true of the Australian. So Kim Jong-un is not mad enough to launch a first strike on a nuclear-armed superpower. But wouldn't his nuclear-armed ally, China, back him in a fight? That's what happened in the 1950-53 Korean War, when China threw itself into the fray and suffered casualties approaching half a million men killed and wounded. Answer: It probably depends on who starts the fight. Under their 1961 treaty, China is committed to coming to North Korea's defence if it is attacked. But if Pyongyang launches an unprovoked war, China is under no obligation. A state-owned Chinese publication, the ultra-nationalist Global Times, urged on the weekend: "China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral." This paper does not represent official policy but it reflects growing Chinese frustration with Pyongyang. "Dear Marshall" Kim cannot be sure of Chinese support in a war against the US. This was reinforced by Chinese President Xi Jinping's weekend call for "all sides" to exercise restraint.

North Korea is called the 'Soprano state' for good reason. Reading beyond the headlines, the detail shows Kim to be waging carefully calibrated brinkmanship, not suicidal recklessness.So if he's not mad, what's he hoping to achieve with his relentless buildup? David Asher of Washington's Centre for a New American Security is a former US negotiator with Pyongyang and has unique intimacy with the regime's workings.Asher puts it this way: "North Korea wants acknowledgment from the US and other powers that it has 'existential deterrence' and that we would never attack it."This would then allow it "to proliferate and continuously provoke with no fear of retribution. This is classic mafia strategy where extortion at the barrel of a sawn off shot gun becomes accepted by a much larger community who are fearful of opposing the mafia for fear of retribution. We call North Korea the 'Soprano state' for good reason." The extortion would occur at the negotiating table, says Asher: "North Korea deeply wants negotiations to produce a financial and political reward for its belligerent and coercive behaviour." Like any extortioner, Kim figures it's easier than working for a living. Illustration: Dionne Gain All of this suggests strongly that Kim Jong-un is not about to launch a war of aggression. But neither is he about to abandon his weapons programs. He will continue improving his missiles and his nukes and testing them flamboyantly. He is daring the US to stop him.

In fact we may know more about Kim's thinking than we do about Donald Trump's. Kim has been leader for over a year, head of the central military commission for five years and represents the third generation of consistent Kim dynasty strategy. What is Trump's strategy? We have yet to find out. Which is why it was curious to see Malcolm Turnbull pledging Australia to support the US in a fight that is not yet under way and may never be. Kevin Rudd described this as "irresponsible".It's certainly unnecessary. As David Asher points out: "ANZUS does not need to be invoked since we all remain at war with North Korea under the UN flag", under the terms of the 1953 armistice.So what's Turnbull doing? He is, no doubt, turning a necessity into a virtue. If Australia is already committed, he may as well win credit in Washington by saying so, loud and proud. And hoping to elevate himself at home as a national security prime minister. It's certainly easier to make earnest pronouncements of being "joined at the hip" with the Americans than it is to talk honestly about practical matters, such as whether Australia will consider its own missile defence arrangements. Loading Of all the leaders, the Australian is the most transparent.

Peter Hartcher is international editor.