http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/north-korea-considering-guam-strike-trump/index.html
Strike or be striked first. At this point I see thise as the only two options. Fighting is not a matter of altruism, it is a matter of national security. Fighting is not casually throwing away millions of lives like they are not, it's sacrificing those lives for the safety of hundreds of millions.
I will be surprised if we aren't fighting on the Korean Peninsula by the end of the year.
Thoughts?
Nothing will happen.
North Korea was warned never to develop the capacity to build nuclear weapons - they did.
North Korea was warned never to test nuclear weapons - they did.
North Korea was warned never to build ICMBs - they did.
North Korea was warned never to develop nuclear warheads for ICBMs - they did.
Now we find out that North Korea may have as many as 60 nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
So what?
Big deal.
Since post-World War Two lots of countries have armed themselves with nukes but none have used them. Why would North Korea be any different?
North Korea is perceived to be ruled by a madman, but they've not started a war since 1950. Their leadership isn't determined to unleash nuclear war, but to merely remain in power and enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of their fellow countrymen. They might be evil and ruthless, but they are nothing but pragmatic.
Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq (pre-emption at its worst), North Korea (and I suspect a few other countries) have determined that the only way to stop a US attack and regime change is to develop nuclear weapons. It makes sense. Check mate. No "Operation North Korean Freedom" in the offing.
The US lived with the USSR having as many as 50,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War, and as I recall the 1980s we didn't go to sleep at night terrified of a Commie first strike every night.
We can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea. If we can't, then the US faces the option of initiating a war that will claim hundreds of thousands of lives.
North Korea's nuclear program may have prevented a US invasion but it doesn't do them much good otherwise. What good are those nukes other than for deterrence? None. They can't sell 'em. They'll get blamed (and nuked in return) if their buyers ever try to use them. They can't threaten the US, South Korea or Japan for, say, economic aid or else they'll use them. What if the US, South Korea, Japan, etc. just says "No". What's Kim going to do? Nuke Seoul if not enough food aid trucks show up at the border?
Of course, the world is probably more troubled by the "madman" in the White House nowadays more so than they are of anyone in Pyongyang or Tehran or Islamabad.