I like your solution Michael. I only hope the city you reside in is the recipient of the first srike

I'm pretty sure they can't reach Florida, so I'm okay.

as you seem to think the risk of a srike by an unstable leader may seem unlikely to you

Don't think my position comes from by geographic location. We have to assume that the DPRK will act in their own perceived interest, and as long as attaching us will guarantee their destruction, they won't do it. If we can't act on that assumption, if they are truly varelse, then we'd may as well destroy them now.

However an attack on the United States by Japan in 1941 seemed to be unbalanced behavior. It did, never the less, occur.

Actually that was a very logical decision on their part. Japan was hoping for a knock-out blow to force us into a treaty that was favorable to their goals of a Pacific empire.

If North Korea fires a few rounds of nukes into the USA will the UN allow us to return fire with ours or will we get treated like Israel by the world community. Please tell me - inquiring minds want to know.

I'm guessing we'd have enough nukes in the air to decimate the North Korean population before theirs even detonated, so what the UN would or wouldn't do is kind of a moot point.

Also, the number of nuclear weapons that they might have produced is believed to be rather small, no?

The TD-2, if successful, carries a payload of something like 500 kg. Can the North Koreans build a nuclear weapon that it could carry? Nobody knows.

Bottom line: Japan is more a nuclear power than NK is and the Japanese haven't tried to build a nuclear weapon yet. When the Japanese start building nukes of their own, I'll believe that the North Koreans have a nuclear capability we should be worried about.

They acknowledged having nuclear weapons six years ago

Well if the DPRK says so, it must be true.

have conducted underground detonations

That fizzled, meaning their warhead design and/or materials aren't ready.

and fired missiles across other countries

That can't carry the weight of the single-stage warhead design everyone thinks they're using.

I believe that they could destroy several square miles of Seoul, but I don't think that Anchorage or Honolulu are in any danger from nuclear weapons.

They've got nuclear material, but so far no demonstration that they have a working warhead, let alone the capabilities of delivering it.

They acknowledged having nuclear weapons six years ago, have conducted underground detonations, and fired missiles across other countries. They ain't the USSR but they're a nuclear weapons state.

they've got nukes.

They've got nuclear material, but so far no demonstration that they have a working warhead, let alone the capabilities of delivering it.

Also, this new missiles can reach Hawaii and Alaska, but the DPRK isn't going to be posing an existential threat to the USA like the USSR did. We, however, do pose an existential threat to them. Realistically, our concerns with this involve Japan, which is much more vulnerable to this missile that we are.

American voters may have been mesmerized by dopey rhetoric and slobbering media air cover, but back in the real world, our enemies sense and prey on weakness, and exploit it.

Brace yourselves.

Brilliant politics? Or dangerous politics for us and for them?

Nah, they've got nukes. So do we. That pretty much bounds the game, making this a mere publicity stunt rather than cause for concern.