They clearly should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I think a better question would be how the international community should handle the situation.
Why should they clearly be forbidden to have nuclear weapons? What gives the U.S. The right to have nuclear weapons, but forbid others from the same?
I personally don't believe that North Korea should be allowed to build or amass nuclear weapons. With Kim Jong-un's temperament any perceived slight towards him/or the country, it could/more than likely would lead to a nuclear war. As for how the international community should handle the situation, even harsher trade sanctions and the refusal of dealing with them may work. Otherwise i do believe the only other option would be war.
How would it lead to nuclear war? Outside of propaganda there is no credible evidence that NK would truly attempt to start a war with any of its' neighboring countries; rather, the NK could potentially use nuclear weapons as a means to lift itself into the world community and be recognized as a legitimate power. You can argue the leader is volatile, but is the leader suicidal?
Personally I wish the USA would just invade North Korea and overthrow Kim Jong-un. Fuck letting them having any weapons under their current leader. Sadly I don't think it'll happen with liberals in power preaching war = terriorism.
How should the U.S. Go about invading the likes of NK? What about the likes of China and Russia? North Korea may be isolated, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum and any invasion could lead to an even larger conflict between bigger and stronger nations.
They already have weapons (estimated to be around 5), but they lack a delivery system.
Also, I don't understand your last comment, but it sounds rather close-minded.
North Korea is honestly too volatile of a nation, if you can even call it one, to be harboring weapons of mass destruction. From what I can tell, their leader is quite the egotist and will not hesistate to make his presence known, using whatever tactics that are at his disposal. As a result, I am strongly against a North Korea that has access to an arsenal of Nuclear weapons.
Why wouldn't it be a nation-state? An entity has control of it's borders and a monopoly on the use of violence so that meets the definition of a state pretty well. It may be that of a totalitarian state, but that doesn't make it not a state; rather, just a type of state you may not agree with.
Surely Kim Jong Un loves making his presence known, but there is a continuing cycle of NK doing something the international community doesn't like and stating it will stop upon continuation of more international aid, further prolonging his rule (and isn't that what those in power want? To remain in power longer?)
