For Peace of Mind, try Dr. Oppenheimer's A-Bomb

North Korea has apparently tested another nuclear device. It seems logical, based on 20th century history and the recent experience of Iraq, that possessing at least one nuclear device offers the best insurance against aggressive neighbors, or over-reaching super powers... especially if your perspective is from that of small, poor, paranoid and sick North Korea.

But no matter how small, poor, paranoid and sick you are as a state, it seems unlikely that North Korea would want to use a nuke against anyone... because the response from the U.S. et al (U.S.: 10,740 bombs*, Russia: 16,000, etc.) would seem likely to be a nuke or two right back in the face. So, am I correct in saying that acquiring nuclear bombs has proven to be more an insurance policy than the biggest of big sticks?

*About 800 U.S. nukes are tactical missile-delivered warheads with accuracy to within 100 meters.