Given the DPRK's secrecy, there's always tealeaf-reading involved in any interpretation of its behaviour. Many DPRK-watchers do suggest that the neocon drive to regime change in general, and the 2011 Libyan intervention in particular, cemented its determination to gain a credible nuclear deterrent.

If the US had a normal President, this might be rational enough. As things stand, we're a whisker away from a war which will incinerate millions, kill the world economy stone dead for decades, and prevent all progress on the many critical issues facing our dying planet.

You say a normal president would help, but a "normal president" was behind the shit in Libya that you said cemented NK's determination. No matter what kind of president America has, our reckless foreign intervention through the past few decades is to blame.

I didn't say a normal president would 'help', nor did I defend the US's MIC. I said nuclear deterrence as a rational response on the part of the DPRK depends on the assumption of a normal functioning President. Given the incumbent, the DPRK may have made a miscalculation that will end in ashes.

> If the US had a normal President

The president is a non-issue on strategic matters, he has no knowledge on this, he knows it and the people around him know it. If you watch him, you'll see him do the typical alpha-male thing solely for his crowd, then the generals will tap him on the shoulder, whisper something in his ear, and after that he will do and say what he's told. Happened for Syria, happened for Iraq, happened for Afghanistan, and it will be the same for NK.

> he has no knowledge on this

True

> he knows it

I've seen no evidence of this yet

> it will be the same for NK

We'd better hope so, but the clear first rule of thinking about the future is to give scant attention to anyone who expresses much confidence in their own prognostications. No-one knows what will happen, because the future is undetermined (read Tetlock amongst others: political predictions are difficult and generally of low accuracy).

Don't forget that the whole design of the US nuclear deterrent system is precisely to make their use not "strategic", but keep it rather within the tactical ambit of the POTUS (for an expert description see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/...). So if in a fit of pique Trump decided to 'teach Kim a lesson' (this is the level of sophistication at which he thinks), "the generals" may well tap him on the shoulder, but it will be entirely a matter of his whim whether or not he heeds that tap.

Your retreat into comforting certainty is quite understandable.

Which war? The one with NK, or the one with Russia?

War with NK could break out any day or hour if we're unlucky. With Russia? Not impossible, particularly if someone badly stuffs up in Syria, but far less likely.

If you don't believe me.. go take a look a Syria, Irak, Lybia, soon Venezuela.

Sorry you are being downvoted. But what you write is the perspective of North Korea. And within some underlying assumptions it is perfectly relational.

Nrk is spending massive amounts on military but probably is losing to South Korea. Nuclear weapons offers nrk a way out of being outspent.

The west accepted Pakistan as a nuclear power; my guess is that we will accept nrk as well.

What Syria, Iraq and Libya all have in common -- dictators with brutal policies that naturally create a lot of domestic enemies. Did US try to influence those countries? definitely yes. Playing dirty? of course. But that's world politic for you.

Single out the US isn't helpful for the discussion. Do you think Russia, China, EU have all just stayed away from all of the conflicts? How about Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Turkey?

Ask South East Asia countries what they think of China; or ex-USSR states of Russia; or Sri Lanka of India.

North Korea has the support of China and holds South Korea ransom. They don't need nuclear weapon for self defense.

Common point of all of these countries: they're bloodthirsty dictature enslaving / mass-murdering their population.

Thankfully the US invasions put a stop to all the murders /s

As much as I hate the NK regime I have to agree with this. If I were on the USA's shit list I'd be trying to become nuclear capable as quickly as possible to prevent "regime change".

How about you try not to enslave your population in the last communist totalitarian dictatorship in the world ? What course of action make you think treating your population like shit is wise ? It consumed the Stalinist USSR, what do you expect will happen when you keep pissing off the whole world ?

> It consumed the Stalinist USSR, what do you expect will happen when you keep pissing off the whole world ?

At a guess, once you are a nuclear power, absolutely nothing.

Exactly nothing, if you have the capacity to nuke the capital cities of the whole world.

To be clear: I think the Government of NK is monstrously evil, and I wouldn't shed a tear if their population rose up and lynched them.

But their behaviour in seeking nuclear weapons is rational, because history has shown that non-nuclear dictatorships with valuable resources get invaded.