[dahfizz]

> But I do agree resuming hostilities would lead to unpredictable and undesirable outcomes.

Could you expand on this? Perhaps naively, I would expect the US & allies to be able to bomb all NK military assets and topple the inferior government easily & quickly. It wouldn't be another guerilla ground war, we just want to destroy their military capabilities.

I guess there is still the concern that China would back NK, but I can't see what China benefits from that. A war with other superpowers to protect a poor, weak, unpredictable regime?

[SllX]

A buffer State. The PRC doesn’t want the Korean Peninsula used as a land-based route for an invasion of China by Japan, the US or Russia. Even if the DPRK is a problem, it’s also a barrier to entry for invading China and that’s good enough for the PRC to still support it.

[ianburrell]

North Korea has nuclear weapons. They have ICBMs that can hit west coast of US but few enough that maybe could be intercepted. They also have shorter range missiles that threaten South Korea and Japan.

North Korea has few enough nukes that first strike to take them out is possible. But would likely require using nukes. China, and much of the world, would not be happy. Acceptable if war has broken out, not to start a war.

[rvnx]

DPRK is useful because it can inflict damage and threats without having its masters (most likely Russia or China) getting directly involved.

Also helpful to collect intelligence.

Sending missiles toward Japan directly hurts the economy of Japan and its political stability (which in returns, has positive effects that the competitors of Japan can reap).

[jim-jim-jim]

Seoul is close enough to the DMZ to be in the firing range of conventional artillery. There's a non-nuclear form of MAD at play.