North Korea and the death of Responsibility To Protect

Apparently, the growing-more-neoconservative-every-day Washington Post editorial page seems to have forgotten what happened the last time we crossed the Yalu River, and wants more aggressive action on North Korea. As usual, they're fully aware (I hope, at least) that no military action is feasible or will work, and thus propose nothing, but invoke the US decision not to bomb railways to concentration camps in Nazi Germany and slam Christopher Hill for being "practical."

To the Post: Do you want us to bomb a nuclear-armed country because of its human rights abuses or not? And do you think that will improve its human rights record or not? I didn't quite understand, please speak more clearly.