step 2: SOMEONE GET ME JAMES FRANCO

Perhaps a naval blockade

throw ships at the missiles... I like it

Put a bunch of Burke's around the missile sites and pick them off.

I actually agree with the naval blockade. It might force a war, but it would force North Korea to be the aggressor and China has already said that if Nothing Korea started shit, they'd stand by and watch them get obliterated.

Frankly it's between that and a pre-emptive strike. Allowing them to get nuclear weapons is unacceptable. And I don't really care what happens to the populace during the blockade.

"throw ships at the missiles... I like it"

Please meet my friend Aegis.

@gold, are you worried more about the concept of being the aggressor in general, or more specifically about the Chinese? If a deal was brokered with the Chinese, would a pre-emptive strike be better, as we could hopefully catch them somewhat unawares, as opposed to letting them disperse mobile launchers, mobilize, etc.?

"Allowing them to get nuclear weapons is unacceptable."

...

Oops

Yeah I know James. I know. It should've been done under Bush, but we were a bit occupied.

My concern is chiefly the Chinese and Russians, KC. I want them to be kosher with it.

"we were a bit occupied."

More like "a bit occupying..."

The only viable strategy in North Korea is to support a coup by some powerful figure you can work with. Say that if he takes over and does away with the nukes he has the sanctions lifted and gets so many billions of US aid dollars that he can skim some off for himself. This will be difficult and risky, probably won't lead to democracy, and there is evidence to suggest it's been tried and failed before, but I can't think of any other solution

We need a new way of thinking. Sanctions and threats haven't worked, so we have to think outside the box.

I'm all for ending sanctions for five years. Impoverishing people only feeds into Kim#s narrative. We need the population to become wealthier and to see that their are different systems out there that could meet their needs. I'd grant them massive aid also.

Kim would find it harder to paint the west as the bad guys and hopefully we can undermine his regime. It might spark a coup. A coup that we certainly shouldn't engineer or support militarily, change has to come from within.

If that doesn't work then try sanctions after 5-10 years when they have had a taste of a better life.

It's hard to stage a coup when Kim's killed off most viable choices.

Yeah, coup is the great idea. It worked great in the past.

There is an solution. Live and let live. It is easy. Just do not do to others what you do not want to happen to you. Remember how civil war ruined milions of lives in the states. Well the same effect is happening to the countries USA "liberates". Every liberation means 50 years of poverty and unrest for those liberated countries. During those 50 years after li eration natural resources somehow gone extinct of course.

@ Randomizer

Not really. Every time you execute a competent lieutenant you weaken the regime and the support of previously loyal lieutenants. Kim hasn't made himself safer. Quite the reverse. Having said that, it clearly isn't easy.

Let Japan, China, and South Korea handle the problem of North Korea. Our new policy is to trade with everyone and only protect freedom of navigation on the seas and airway.

Eturnage's policy of announcing to the world that the US's new international policy is that he who develops nukes has won and will be suitably rewarded is interesting, but I feel comes with a boat load of severe negative consequences.

Nuclear non-proliferation in N. Korea is a regional and/or UN issue.

Give South Korea nukes and then walk away with our hands over our ears

Nuclear non-proliferation is a global issue with which the Security Council should take a leading role. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by a hostile state also makes it a national security issue for the US. Walking away is not an option.

Eturnage, how can you be okay with a country who regularly promotes videos of bombing the US aquiring the capabilities the actually nuke us

Dejan, I would argue that in this case it would be less like "liberating" those countries of the past and closer to East and West Germany reuniting. Or North and South Vietnam.

North Korea is not a member of the non proliferation treaty. The government of North Korea has seen what can happen if you do not have nuclear arms (Iraq, Libya). From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to become a nuclear power. It gets respect and prevent regime change.
Please note that the NPT is a courtesy to the permanent five on the security council.

@Goldfinger0303: The US threaten other countries (Middle East, Venezuela, North Korea), topple governments (Guatemala, Persia) or just invade them (Grenada comes to mind). I think the US in general are a force for good, but not always.
I do understand though that countries that feel threatened by the US want to have leverage and protect themselves. North Korea is evil, but understands how the world works.

@ksako - I never said NK wasn't acting rationally. The Kims have always been savvy players on the international level. And they have the right strategy in mind.

But on multiple levels we cannot allow this to happen. Least of which is that we have troops in a country NK is still technically at war with. So our options are an embargo and blockade, similar to how we were going to treat Japan before they Pearl Harbored us, or an invasion itself. With guarantees of Russian and Chinese non-interference, it would be over quickly.

I can't understand how can NKorea finds money to buy or produce arms. I think a country which likes NKorea must fall because of non-trade.

Didn't we try a violent overthrow of the North Korean regime? It didn't work out in the end. Team America got rid of Kim Jong-il and the littlest Kim just took his place. Sheesh.

@goldfinger0303: I think it is already too late. They have the weapon and the means. Seoul is less than 100 km from the border. Are you willing to gamble with all those lives with an invasion? I am sure the US will conquer them fast, but at what cost?
Also, they understand Mutually Assured Destruction. They know that going on the offensive is suicide. So as long as they are not desperate, they won't use them. As we both agree, they are not irrational.
Has anyone ever actually asked what they want? It is not clear to me what they actually want to achieve, except being left alone.

@ goldfinger

An invasion isn't an option. The South Korean capital will be levelled by artillery at the first sign of attack, before we have a chance of taking them out. Add to that the real prospect of nuclear mines placed at strategic locations. Their army can't be easily dismissed either.

And you never know. They might actually try launching a nuclear missile. Especially if the US maintains its new habit of sailing 3 aircraft carriers alongside each other.