Israel probably had nukes during the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

Regarding your edit and given NKs ability to attack Seoul and possibly Japan, I'm afraid that some in the US military would reach the conclusion that the only possible way to attack is with a massive nuclear first strike. Some may think that as horrible as that is, it prevents the inevitable nuclear strike by NK on Seoul, Tokyo or Los Angeles.

In the post-WWII era, nuclear weapons are the best source of security for any country because of the potential for retaliation against an attack. All countries, including NK, are concerned with security. Thus, NK already has the motive for developing nuclear weapons, regardless of the United States' attitude towards them.

My understanding is that NK doesn't currently have the capability to attach nuclear warheads to the missiles they're testing, so we still have a window of opportunity before contemplating this kind of response.

This may well all be correct. But, what aggressive action has NK taken in the last 65 years? Testing weapons counts as aggressive? Perhaps, but that makes for a lot of aggression in the world. Denmark might even test weapons. NK may have a formidable army, but they haven't looked to gain territory and invading SK, aside from being impossible for them to do successfully, doesn't really seem to be what they are trying to for.

We may well have the ability to shoot down their ICBMs and their missiles are not really that likely to work anyway, but obviously it's not a great thing to have the risk.

This is a war crime and all, but maybe we should assassinate KJU before we try invasion or bombing.

I would immediately stop my nuclear program and invite Chinese troops into my country.

Supposedly they have the capability to rain artillery like there's no tomorrow on Seoul. I guess the plan would be to bomb what we think are their nuclear facilities, which are certainly very far below ground and may survive, and then wait to see if they start firing and then bomb the hell out of them. And really, doesn't that kind of conventional bombing take weeks at least?

How far back do we set their nuclear program with limited bombing? I wouldn't think that far. Seems like we need to either end the regime or get weapons inspectors unrestricted access if we are going to get rid of the threat.

China doesn't want to be in NK. They don't want millions of poor illegal immigrants spilling into their country looking for work.

So your position is, essentially, every country will try and develop nuclear weapons, and that we will need to militarily threaten every country we're not allied with to prevent them?

Buckle up, I guess.

They did bomb a South Korean island in 2010, killing four South Koreans. They also kidnapped many Japanese civilians back in the 80s.

I disagree regarding their intentions regarding South Korea, but that is a separate argument.

I did a little research before posting it. Falklands was invaded and that was British, so that may count.

Israel probably had the beginnings of a nuclear bomb in 1973. I don't know if the other countries knew about it then and Israel has been incredibly secretive about it.

It is amazing that it has been 72 years since an atomic/nuclear weapon has been used. And we used the first and only two. Now there are ~15,000 weapons in the hands of many different leaders. At some point, weapon #3 will be detonated. But it be unusual that just one more is used vs. a slew of them.

Countries have a right to defend themselves. From their point of view, how can the US tell them they are not allowed to defend themselves at all costs but the US can with thousands of nuclear weapons? Of course they are going to look at us with disdain.

It is of course in our self-interest and national security to have nuclear weapons and make sure other countries don't have them.

Complex situation.

And yet 189 countries have signed the non-proliferation treaty, many of whom could develop nuclear weapons. 4 states have given up nuclear weapons, though The Ukraine may regret having done so.

Exactly. Further, the alliance between NK and China is one of convenience, not natural sympathy. China has various regions it's keeping the lid on, so maybe they'll be bullish about adding another, but I presume they'll be sensible enough to know that in 10 years or so they'll either have a NK insurrection on their hands or be facing SK/US demands to hand it over.

China would prefer to guarantee NK sovereignty over US/SK invasion is my guess. Right now China prefers the status quo to a unified and SK-dominated Korea or to a anarchic NK. The US is trying to convince China that the status quo isn't feasible - either they have to intervene or we will. We started with secondary sanctions against Chinese banks with NK ties. My worry is that China no longer has the ability to stop NK even if they do accept this understanding of the situation.

It is obviously correct to sign NPT if you don't intend to develop nuclear weapons. In some cases, this is because of treaty alliances with countries that do have nuclear weapons. In other cases, this is because of threats and bribes. As for the countries that gave up nuclear weapons - I think those were all unusual situations that are not analogous to NK.

Sure, I agree with all this.

Not at the moment, but they were either countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan) or international pariahs looking to get off that list (South Africa).

A lot of countries don't have or want nuclear weapons though because they correctly recognize that proliferation makes the world less safe, it would be expensive, it would make them in particular less safe, and they aren't really under threat of annihilation from any foreign power.

If assassination would work then I'm all for that. Seems difficult though and I'm not sure what would stop them from launching an artillery attack right after the assassination.

You point out that they haven't looked to invade SK because its impossible for them, and that's true. Our exercises and decapitation drills are part of what keeps that impossible, and thus prevents them for invading SK. If we stop doing what we're doing you don't get peace, you most likely get a repeat of 1950 eventually.

North Korea has acted aggressively for years. Here are a couple examples, I'm sure there are many others:
artillery bombardment of South Korean islands
axe murders
Cheonon sinking
Pueblo incident, and subsequent torture of its crew for several months
kidnapping Japanese citizens
kidnapping South Korean citizens

attempting to assassinate the South Korean President

But your point about us acting aggressively is well taken. Overall we are very aggressive towards North Korea. Its similar to how we behaved towards Germany in the run up to entering WWI, and Japan before WWII. Basically we tend to give our enemies a choice between backing down or keeping it real and fighting a war that they can't win.

NK can't want a repeat of 1950. Not even KJU. In the Korean war everything in NK was destroyed. American bombing planners complained that there were no targets left, not a single building standing in many cities, but bombing continued. We could back off a long way before they could even think they had a hope of successfully taking SK back. Really a long long long way.

I think treaty alliances have a lot to do with it, like Japan and Germany. They have no choice but to be friends with us. That is not a long-term strategy and which is probably why Germany wants their own nuclear weapons program. They need to have an option of not always aligning with another country.

We constantly hear talk about the importance of self-determination and national security. Every other country has those same concerns and their citizens look to their government/leaders to provide them safety.

If North Korea stops publicly testing missiles and spouting messages of attack against other countries, it could probably be assured of safety. They sent the message loud and clear that they have the weapons and they are not afraid to use them. We got it.

There has to be the belief that NK leaders don't want their country extinguished just to damage Seoul or LA or SF. I think they just want to show they can so we will back off. Which it seems we have no choice but to follow. Painfully.

I don't know if we want a repeat of that either. What does leveling every building accomplish?

I have a feeling that they are fiercely loyal to KJU. The closest comparison may be East and West Germany. But NK is probably much better at restricting defectors. If you defect, they will imprison your remaining family members. Knowing that will be the result, it seems almost selfish to defect.

Pretty fascinating country which is why the risk-takers among us want to visit.

There are still defectors, which is amazing.

Let's be simplistic. Though it is rarely mentioned, it seems pretty clear that the biggest reason North Korea doesn't expect us to attack them is because that would make Russia and China very mad at us. And actually I think it is much more Russia that matters since they are the only country that has the ability to fight us to a near draw while killing most Americans.

In other words if Russia ever proclaimed that they don't care about North Korea or what we do to them, North Korea would probably quickly stop their shenanigans.

Perhaps. NK has made a pretty good table play that if we (or anyone) attack them, they will have no problem firing off a nuclear weapon or two, which keeps us at bay. They can put one of our college kids into a coma-death for attempting to steal a poster and there is nothing we can do except scream at them. And they know that and love it.

Doubt that has much to do with it. Russia would never go to war over NK. China wouldn't go to war either, but our economy is so bound up with China now that their position would matter a lot. Russia may or may not have a lot of influence because of Trump though.

The problem with war with NK is that it would spill into SK immediately and maybe Japan. We could bomb Iraq all day and all night and they were not really able to mount any significant attack on Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Taking The Ukraine into NATO was way more threatening to Russia than invading NK would be. Or do you think they'd defend NK out of some sense of justice? The Urkaine has had repercussions for sure, but not all out war with Russia.