They are a threat to their surrounding area and to the United States. and potentially the state of the world.

no, if they do anything, china and the us will help turn south korea into an island

North Korea is surrounded on pretty much all sides by superpowers, Kim Jong isn't a threat to anyone outside his borders.

I will tell you something about points of view person who is living in Poland.

In our history there was many wars and when I see that what is happening in our times I feel terrible. I think that it is really dangerous what North Korea is doing. Not because they are superpower (they aren't), but because they can start war which will be much bigger than we can even imagine. Novadays there is so many countries that will help them, that we should be really carefull of how other countries treat North Korea.

But I still can't understand why people just can't live with eachother without thinking about conflict. Why can we just all live on this planet as a partners and friends? If we will do that, then all army could just dissapear with all those rackets, missles, nuklear bomb, etc.

It is all sad...

Whilst I recognise that North Korea, by building nuclear weaponry, becomes a dangerous threat to South Korea, I can't help but sniff at the hypocrisy when I hear of countries like the USA and the UK telling other countries that they can't build nuclear weapons because the USA and UK are 'good' countries and these other countries are 'bad' countries.

It's different to hold nuclear weapons when you are permanently seated on the U.N. Security Council and signed away thousands of treaties on which nukes are where and how many and whose watching them ad nauseam, and having nuclear weapons when you are some batshit dictator. The way I see it, we would rather the nukes be in the hands of Putin than say, Castro. Not saying the thought is comforting either way, but let's be serious here.

Sure, that notion makes sense. But we both know that the closest any modern superpower will do is match it's contemporaries in disposal. If Russia gets rid of a nuke, so will the U.S. People celebrate what they call progress, but it's hard to consider depleting the United States nuclear missile supply by .013% a smashing victory for pacifists everywhere. The only difference between say, 100 nukes and the 7,300 we have is a few million deaths; some may see this as important but in the grand scheme of things (and by things, I mean who's getting bombed if the U.S. decides to let fly with the ICBM's) it's a relatively small amount. I mean, even if we only had the aforementioned 100 nukes, you could easily take out every city on Earth with over 5 million people and have room to spare. And I'm not bragging at all, it just goes to show you how intense the situation is.

I disagree. The use of nuclear weapons might be needed very soon. However deeply intertwined trades between nations are, and however strong these are in keeping nations from declaring war on one another, there must always be a contingency. One for a country that does not rely much on anyone else but themselves, that would feel like that could do anything because they don't rely on others. Like NK. Nuclear weapons aren't really the primary weapon, but the plan z.