Yet Kim Dae Jung won in 2000 because of similar promises. And Obama won for absolutely nothing. So there is definitely precedent for prizes awarded with minimal lasting results. Knowing the Nobel Committee though, Kim Jung Un is more likely to win.

I wish the Norwegians would adopt a strict rule against awarding any politicians before they're retired from public service. Obama's prize was pointless and actively damaged the perception of the Peace Prize in the United States.

There are so many worthy recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize that are virtually unknown outside their specific non-profit niches — focus on those instead, and use the prize to highlight their work.

Well NK has committed to denuclearization[1], while the US also talk about denuclearization[2].

In general, that is what makes half of foreign policy reporting semi-useless, newspapers rarely report in which sense diplomats use the words. (Compare "fighting terrorist" as claimed by everybody, in general terrorist is just defined by threatening the interests of the speaker.)

[1] Likely meaning a mutual, synchronous and long term reduction of nuclear weapons towards a global zero goal. (Like the stated US nuclear policy of the Obama administration.)

[2] Meaning a prompt and unilateral abolishment of the NK nuclear program, as in Libya.

They didn't have nukes or ICBM's before, so their hand is much stronger.