No matter what I say, you along with the rest of the world already assume the US is the cause of all this mess.
What the juddering f*ck are you on about?
I dont approve of my govt doing what it does but its mighty funny how everyone is ok with a known plausible psychotic dictator showing his nukes to the world
Eh? Seriously, what on earth are you trying to say? It's bad enough you misrepresent my views, but now we have this silly global straw man? You really should think things through before you actually say them.
So exactly what can we base any estimate of probability of any course of action on? There's lots of distinct factors that require consideration. First, there's the historic behaviour of the DPRK. They've engaged in military skirmishes with the South, and occasionally American forces on the peripheries, from time to time over the last 60 years. They've attempted some cross-border raids, including at least one to assassinate the SK leadership. They occasionally shell islands or instigate naval confrontations. But they have not shown any interest in direct, substantial military confrontation. This rather tallies up with the notion that, when it comes to geopolitical strategic policy, the DPRK behaves with a modicum of rationality inasmuch as it seeks to continue its existence as a state.
If we assume that, in geopolitical terms at least, Mr Kim is at least a partially rational actor, it stands to reason he has no desire to strike the first blow in any significant military conflict, let alone a nuclear strike. Doing so would be effectively apocalyptic for North Korea. This also tallies with the last 11 years of history, where the DPRK has possessed nuclear weapons but not used them. As an aside, if your intent was to stop NK getting the bomb, then you need to go invent a time machine. Getting a deployable nuclear weapon is just a matter of time from that point.
There have been ten nuclear armed states in global history. Five of these are the UNSC permanent members, five are not and are technically in breach of the NPT by doing so. The closest comparable state to the DPRK in this respect is probably Apartheid era South Africa, which had somewhere between 5 and 20 complete weapons before it renouced its nuclear program in 1994. Only one state, the US, has ever used nuclear weapons in anger.
North Korea having miniaturised a boosted fission weapon is a significant escalation in capability, but it doesn't fundamentally change anything. One, or a couple of, 200kt nuclear weapons that can be delivered 8000km is significant, but it's not a full arsenal useful for first and second strike, and counterforce capability. It can only really do second strike, which is only really useful as a last resort or deterrence.
So. You tell me what would you do that hasnt already been done and without any influence of the US whatsoever?
Wait, why "without any influence of the US"? Is this your continued delusional belief that I blame the US for recent events?
As for what can be done, that depends very much on what outcome you seek. It's all very well you accusing me of failing to provide answers, you haven't actually posed the question.
Would everyone here be really ok with a dictator having ICBMs capable of reaching anyone on the globe?
It's not like the Soviet Union ever had a massive ICBM arsenal is it? Oh wait, yes they did- significantly larger than that if the US at its peak.