> "I won't use it, pinkies crossed" is no defense for such deadly weapons under any circumstances I can imagine.

That's literally what the measure of allowing countries nukes is.

Though, granted, North Korea withdrew from the "pinkies crossed" promise. But there are other countries (India, Pakistan, Israel) that have nuclear weapons but haven't promised to use them responsibly. Which no one seems to phased about, so why North Korea?

You keep bringing this up and I keep answering you.

North Korea has repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause. Those other countries haven't.

I answered you directly (where you brought it up).

Israel repeatedly attacked/s its neighbours (even occupying them). North Korea is timid in comparison.

Good cause is debatable (for both Israel, and North Korea).

Care to provide an example why North Korea has good cause to invade South Korea ?

You know they keep trying right ?

Much like the Israel/Palestine conflict. They believe the country is theirs. Hence why they want unification.

As I say, good cause is debatable.

You keep claiming they attack their neighbors. Which ones? They have two: China and Russia. They also share a border with the other half of Korea. This is similar to the Mason Dixon line. Both halfs are part of Korea. Do you also object to the War Between the States as unnecessary aggression of the North against the South?

North and South Korea are two separate countries and represent themselves individually within international institutions e.g. UN or WTO. Also by every measure they are separate.

US states have an overarching political, financial and political system that in some parts supercedes the rights of the states.

So I don't think the two are really comparable.

Can we agree that, contrary to your original claim that "repeatedly attacked its neighbours with no good cause", North Korea does not "repeatedly attack" Russia or China, with or without "good cause", these being their only two non-Korean "neighbors"? That leaves this to be only about possibly a single "neighbor", not multiple neighbors regarding claims of "repeatedly attacking a neighbor with no good cause".

So let's look at that one "neighbor". It's reasonable to consider whether that is truly a "neighbor", or is a split of an original united single nation that was split over ideological differences, exacerbated by foreign influences.

The american south declared independence from the american north. The north asserted the right to restore its country through military force and waged a massive destructive war to reunite the nation. This was facilitated by foreign governments supplying arms to both sides.

This is extremely comparable to the current N/S Korean schism, right down to the difference in philosophies regarding human rights by the two sides.

To object to efforts to reunify a split nation by force in one situation, one must object to efforts to reunify a split nation by force in the other situation, in order to remain ideologically consistent. This is why I asked "Do you also object to the War Between the States as unnecessary aggression of the North against the South?"