In article ,
Jose wrote:

True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
disaster and make us the enemy of the world . . .

I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
and it is basically military.

1) I'd sure like to understand what the South Korean govt and the South
Korean people -- the players who really right up against the DMZ --
really, really think about the whole North Korean situation?

The SK govt is by no means intrinsically stupid or evil, and the SK
people are fairly free, well informed about the world, and quite savvy.
Together they've done very well in other areas; I wonder what their
views on this overwhelming and overhanging situation are.

2) As for the nuclear situation, viewed more broadly: IMHO the US
nuclear policy should be:

a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
ever";

b) As a corollary of this, openly and verifiably get rid of all
existing tactical nukes (bunker-busters, artillery shells, other
nonsense) and terminate all programs developing such things;

c) At the same time maintain a modest but adequate array of strategic
nukes and especially the means to deliver them anywhere, any time,
worldwide and on quite short notice;

d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", whether as
retaliation for a first-use attack on us, or as punishment for a first
use by someone else against someone else (or even, implied between the
lines, as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
terrorist act carried out against us).

The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
aligned with the rest of the world.

The purpose of (c) and (d) is twofold:

--Make clear to rational rogue governments (e.g., Pakistan) that
spending resources on nuclear weapons will be ultimately worse than
useless; all they can do with them in the end is destroy themselves.

--More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
otherwise.

This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.