With Sanctions Like These, Who Needs Appeasement?

So the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in favor of sanctions for North Korea, classifying its nuclear test as a "clear threat to international peace and security".  The U.S., the Brits, and the French grappled with the Russian and Chinese appeasocrats until a sufficiently toothless compromise was hammered out.

The resolution demands North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons but expressly rules out military action against the country — a demand by the Russians and Chinese. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton warned Pyongyang, however, that if it continues pursuing nuclear weapons, the United States would seek further measures.
...
The resolution bans the import or export of material and equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. It orders all countries to freeze the assets and ban travel for anyone engaged in supporting North Korea's weapons programs.

To meet Russian and Chinese concerns, the Americans eliminated a complete ban on the sale of conventional weapons.

Translated into parenting terms, the resolution reads, "You're grounded for threatening to kill your siblings.  But so help us, this is the worst thing we're going to do to you if you keep it up.  Here's a box of grenades."

And the acquiescence continues.

...China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said after the vote that the provision allowing the boarding of ships to inspect cargo was still unacceptable to Beijing.

Unanimity is nice and all, but maybe 15 chefs is two too many to get anything meaningful passed if we demand a perfect score.  Is it stronger to be 13-2 on a measure of substance or unanimously behind mere ephemera?  Besides, what does unanimity buy you, other than accusations of unilateralism?  I can't help remembering another resolution unanimously passed by the Security Council four years ago, following similar defanging at the hands of Monsieur Chirac.

Mary Katherine and Hot Air have more.