The NORKS withdrew from the NPT as was their right under Article X of the Treaty.
Why, are you planning on building your own nuke? 
True, but since then there has been 14 UN security council resolutions condemning NK and imposing sanctions. It’s pretty rare that the five permanent members of the SC actually agree on something.
NK also already made statements that would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike in response to the yearly military exercises.
In the list of “stupid things leaders can do to cause them to be attacked”, IMO threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike in reaction to the mere presence of nearby military exercises would pretty much be top of the list.
d’oh!
Don’t feel bad. I only know what yellowcake is from the movie Get Smart! 
They are a threat, but not a clear and present danger threat. I got into the thread because the op suggested essentially, firing a nuclear warning shot. If your gonna use nukes in Korea, then pick the target that would make the most sense, and thats a decapitation shot.
I am not really concerned with the Nork leadership getting some sort of ICBM or SLBM, what I would be concerned with is a nuclear land mine, wait to be over run by allied forces and boom.
All they have to do is put a nuke in the back of a truck and drive it to the DMZ, thats effectively the same as a nuclear land mine for these purposes, place it in an inconspicuous building and wait. They certainly already have that capability, and its highly unlikely that SK or the US would know which truck and that they had done this, just send it in an unmarked military truck like the 10’s of thousands of others that go back and forth to the DMZ.
It’s pretty safe to assume that NK already has 5 or 6 nukes placed at intervals along the DMZ.
[Checks forum] . . . .
Hi, Declan. Hand-wringing resident of Japan here.
Just looking for some clarification on your plan for dealing with North Korea.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks to me like you’re suggesting a nuclear strike encompassing not only North Korea, but also China and even South Korea and Japan?
In terms of military strategies for ensuring stability in the Asia Pacific region, nuking your allies would seem to me to be . . . [double-checks forum] . . . ill-advised.
I assume he meant that if SK, China or Japan get struck by NK in retaliation for a US attack it would still be worth it.
That seems… dubious…
I agree that NK shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, but we all know that they do. What I’m getting at is knowing that they do, what harm does it cause if they set one off in a test? Is testing one considered more of a threat than merely having one?
Testing is part of making them more efficient (bigger bang in a smaller box, so more easy to transport), or more reliable. Also, there’s the whole missile program that seems to be directed towards developing delivery systems that could reach the US mainland.
They aren’t just blowing up what they have, they’re trying to make better bombs and missiles, and that’s really what the problem is with the testing program.
The test was only the official line unless we need a test.
The reason is to totally scare the MF in n korea.
Lets see if we can make you more comfortable with that choice, the same one that Europeans had been living with for the last fifty years.
Nuclear weapons are not a panacea to solve problems, they are not holding back North Korea from invading South Korea. For that to happen, you need a rational actor in Norkville and an assumption that the threats you make will be carried out and that the NK’s believe that.
So basically Micro MAD, so regardless of what you think of my personal decision making skills, do a search on North Korea in the board and read the threads, and it boils down to three end results.
Status Quo ante bellum, in which case we do nothing and the world keeps on going and we pursue a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions in hope that a more rational actor will take the reins of North Korea, and we can close a chapter in the history books that some in the future will call the dark ages.
Military action conventional, in which case its more likely that North Korea has done something that will generate a military response from us, in which case Seoul is most likely destroyed anyways, and that regional neighbors that host or can host American and allied forces striking into North Korea, will be under threat, if not smoking holes depending on if North Korea has the weapons that it says it does.
Nuclear/conventional warfare, we hit the targets that we think can limit the amount of regional damage they can do. Nk’s know that, which is why your going to see nukes being used by us. Since war is a democracy, the other side is going to be doing the same before they lose the capability
Their only real apparent weakness is the line of succession , if we get them all in one shot.
They seem to test one periodically just to remind everyone that they’re a world power too, or something. I think what is more concerning is the progress they make on delivery systems. If the nukes they have are restricted to North Korea, fine. If they can reach Japan or the US, well, Kim seems just nutty enough that he might do it one day.
What we’re doing doesn’t improve the situation. Moving a carrier group and testing delivery systems just puts pressure on him that we’re finally going to come over his border or otherwise attack. He then feels that he must do something to protect himself.
No he didn’t.
I don’t know why people are so googly-eyed over a big bomb. Yeah, it’s a big bomb. It absolutely is not the same as a nuclear weapon. The smallest weapon in the American nuclear arsenal is many times more powerful than the MOAB.
The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty does not prohibit nuclear detonations for military purposes. This is commonly misunderstood. It is not a ban on all nuclear detonations, it is simply a ban on nuclear tests. Military use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited by the treaty, nor apparently is non-test peaceful use of nuclear weapons in certain environments. This was discussed in U.S. congressional hearings in 1963:
Entire proceedings: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations ... - United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations - Google Books
The later Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has never been ratified by the United States and is not in force: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia
A nitpick but we don’t actually know whether they work or not. The US hasn’t tested a nuke since 1992. Indeed, no one apart from NK has tested a nuke since 1998. We expect them to work, but…
I suspect that even if one of our nuclear arsenal is a dud we still have sufficient conventional weaponry to do terrible things to North Korea.
No, you haven’t made me more comfortable with that choice.
Nor do I think most European’s would feel comfortable at the prospect of a global power on another hemisphere going* “old testament” *on one of their immediate neighbours where they and their allies would also be engulfed in Armageddon.
I really don’t understand what you mean by* “a rational actor in Norkville”, “Micro MAD”, “war is a democracy”* or “Status Quo ante bellum” in regard to the current state in NK.
I think there’s more than just the three options as you’re presenting them, and from what I can parse.
But that aside for now, which of these three are you suggesting is the best option?
Your own words in Posts #29, #34 and #46 suggest you’re in favour of a preemptive nuclear strike on NK. Did I get that wrong?
The operative word in what I said is “tactical”. the MOAB was more powerful than the mk-54 tactical nuke that was deactivated in 1968.
So we have effectively maintained a tactical nuclear devise without having to use the word “nuclear”.