It is a tale "full of sound and fury," Shakespeare would say, "signifying nothing."

Confronted by North Korea bent on fielding ballistic missiles capped with nuclear warheads, the administration of President Obama, like the administrations of presidents Bush and Clinton before him, has thundered at Pyongyang's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il.

Obama accused the North Korean of "blatant defiance" and "directly and recklessly challenging the international community." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted that the North Korean has embarked on "an ultimately self-destructive quest for nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles." He said: "We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea "has abrogated the obligations" made in the so-called Six Party Talks. "And it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner toward its neighbors." She contended: "There are consequences to such actions." The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said the U.S. "will seek a strong resolution and strong measures" in the U.N.

To which North Korea's Central News Agency, speaking for the regime in Pyongyang, responded: "The U.S. is double-tongued and applies double standards" to the nuclear issue, was "loud-mouthed" in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons, and is guilty of "sheer hypocrisy."

"Now that the U.S. is keen to mount a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK and stifle it through the application of the above-said double standards," KCNA declared, referring to the formal name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, "the DPRK is left with no option but to bolster its nuclear deterrent and take strong counter-measures."

Thus, the world is left with a gale of American tough but ineffective talk and no strategy to deal with North Korea other than lame pleas that Pyongyang resume the six-party talks with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the U.S. Why no plan of action?

Obama, again like Bush and Clinton, has yet to recognize that Kim Jong Il leads a band of thugs who, unlike most other nations, negotiate by bullying.

Moreover, Obama is not ready to concede what has become amply evident, that North Korea will not give up its nuclear arms and missiles.

None of the three available options is appealing.

Militarily, the U.S. knows where most North Korean nuclear and missile sites are. They could be taken out with a pre-emptive strike using conventional bombs and cruise missiles. North Korean artillery along its southern border could also be a target but North Korea might still be able to launch a barrage at residential communities north of Seoul. That could cause tens of thousands of South Korean casualties.

Diplomatically, what North Korea would want in direct negotiations with the U.S. can be gleaned from recent KCNA dispatches: Withdrawal of American forces from South Korea, abrogation of the U.S. security treaty with Seoul, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan, abrogation of the security treaty with Tokyo, and acceptance as a nuclear state.

Further, North Korea would demand a treaty with the U.S. guaranteeing that the U.S. would not attack North Korea, diplomatic relations with Washington, an end to sanctions, and the opening of trade and economic aid. Even if the U.S. was willing to give Kim Jong Il all that, however, there would be no guarantee that Kim Jong Il would keep his word, given his record for breaking promises.

That leaves breaking off all contact except through the North Korean delegation at the U.N. in New York. The U.S. would then wait until Kim Jong Il, 68, passes from the scene and hope for a more peaceable regime under his son, Kim Jong Un, named recently as the heir apparent.

Richard Halloran, formerly with The New York Times as a correspondent in Asia and in Washington, is a writer in Honolulu.