Since when did the left become pro-nuke?

Last Wednesday, John Bolton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal discussing US policy, North Korea, nuclear containment, presciently entitled Get Ready for Another North Korean Nuke Test.  This prompted Allison Kilkenny of the Huffington Post to respond:

A dictator only has a few options to show he's still hot shit, and one of those is to blast a missile into the ocean. But it's not a threat to the United States. It's actually just pathetic. Call it the official countdown of Kim. He's also sick, weak, and may have had a stroke.

And yet all of these facts couldn't soothe the nerves of our mustachioed maverick, John Bolton. Get Ready for Another North Korean Nuke Test he hollers at the top of the page.

Notice the left-liberal reasoning: a nuclear bomb in the hands on North Korea is nothing to worry about because their current leader is "sick, weak, and may have had a stroke"  and, besides, their missiles currently only reach Japan!  How is the health of North Korean's current leader relevant?  It wont' stop his nukes from exploding.  There is no reason to think his successor would renounce nukes.  So, what is the point?   Also note how lightly the Huffington Post takes a possible nuking Japan, considering it to be "pathetic."  If North Korea can threaten Japan with nukes, doesn't that change things?  Granted that North Korea has not yet demonstrated an ICBM capable of reaching the US.  So, today, "it's not a theat": but, is a shortsighted view like that a sensible way to run foreign policy?  Leave it to the left to make irresponsibility into a virtue.

Hat tip: Jules Crittenden and Legal Insurrection.