comment: >
  
  Well honestly, SK would wipe NK off the map within a week of war.  They have that strong of a military at the moment.  So, there currently is no more justification for 28k troops to be stationed in SK any longer.
context: It will remain a stalemate for a while.  They want to be a begrudgingly accepted nuclear power like Pakistan.  The US and South Korea want complete denuclearization.  The north has china and Russian backing too so US and South hands tied unless North truly escalates. >
  
  What would the tipping point be though? >
  
  NK launches a nuke, it gets intercepted (cause NK is too small and AD can be close by), NK probably gets either nuked or stormed by US and SK military and stops existing as a country.
  Denuclearization is complete. >
  
  Yeah, cause invasions have proven to be extremely effective in the last 5 decades. >
  
  I don’t understand how hermit kingdom can make anything let alone advanced weapons. >
  
  What's classed as an advanced weapon these days? We had nukes back in WW2, just look at the technology we had back then to make them. It's not a hard stretch of the imagination to think north Korea would have WW2 technology at least. >
  
  Right but access to the equipment to refine the fuel etc unless they’re buying the fuel etc. 
  you’re right though. I just wonder, how the hell do they have any money at all >
  
  Look up Office 39; it's a North Korean government agency that makes money for the regime through illicit activities (basically a state-run mafia) such as weapons and narcotics smuggling, selling counterfeit goods and currency, cybertheft, insurance fraud, human trafficking, etc. >
  
  They still get most of their money from taxes and international commerce, like most states. The DPRK is fucked up but it's not primarily subsisting off of mafia shit or insurance fraud. >
  
  "amid", there's that lazy journalism word. >
  
  For the past 60 years, the US has insisted that NK "de-militarize" in exchange for a peace treaty...  has this worked?  Has this produced any positive results?
  Does anyone realistically believe the country is going to just get rid of their weapons now?
  If America had given the peace treaty 50 years ago, no strings attached - would NK have followed along the path it's been on?  Of course, we could never know the true answer to that..  but wpuld they be any worse than they are now had they been given the peace treaty they have repeatedly asked for? >
  
  If a peace treaty is signed with North Korea, then the core justification for the ROK-US Alliance (and the continued US troop presence) disappears soon afterward, which could lead to a formal termination of the alliance and US troop pullout.
  Guess what happened the last time US troops pulled out of South Korea.
  (Here's a hint; June 25, 1950.)