> ...cold "hostile" relation like Pakistan and India, who have learnt to tolerate each other.

..by launching missiles at each other just last year?

South Korea needs to kick out the Americans though. That's more likely to be the real hold up.

I can think of some:

1. North Korea doesn't really need a nuke. That the western allies of South Korea haven't attacked North Korea because it has nukes is overstated. The reason nobody has attacked North Korea yet is because South Koreans don't want to fight a war and endanger their economy. Geographical factors means that South Korea will face significant destruction - missile and artillery fire from NK already can target most regions of SK. And any war with North Korea guarantees the involvement of the Chinese and the Russians too.

2. If we accept the arguments of the west that the nukes are the only reason North Korea has been sanctioned, then giving up nuclear weapons should mean that all economic sanctions on North Korea would be lifted. North Korea already has a reasonably strong conventional military. If the sanctions are lifted, a strong economy + a strong conventional military (along with the military alliance with China and / or Russia) can be enough of a deterrent. Especially if North Korea also behaves as any other responsible nation.

3. Without giving up its nukes, even China and Russia won't allow an independent North Korea, with nukes, to become economically stronger or a democratic country.

4. Right now, the nukes are like an albatross around the neck. Getting rid of them voluntarily can provide immense benefits. NK already knows how to build nuclear weapons. With careful planning, they can resume a nuclear WMD program any time again in the future, if need be.

5. They do not have to give up their nuclear research or civilian nuclear programs.

> Iran has effectively defeated militarily the US, who threw everything at them ...

Let's not lose track of the truth in the hubris. The Iranian strategy to immediately target all the alliance partners of the US ("peace and prosperity for everyone or no one") in the region has lead to a stalemate in the war, with both side recognising that their goals cannot be achieved militarily without a very high cost. (And as you noted, the US has only used a quarter of its firepower yet). But, just like the Ukranians, Iran shouldn't forget that they are fighting a superpower, with a stronger economy and military than them, and neither Ukraine or Iran can defeat them in a conventional sense, if at all. Any nation can survive against a stronger enemy, as both India and Iran have proved with their civilisational heritage. However, the true test of good leadership is survival without extreme harm and suffering to the people while ensuring the unity of the nation.

Iranian here, you're missing an important point: we're a nuclear threshold state. Meaning we can build weapons in a short manner if need be.

This is the reason the security counsel refuses to give up any of its uranium.. and to be fair, I've had a change of heart regarding this. I think the only true deterrence against a nuclear power state is nuclear weapons. It assures at a minimum that your country won't be nuked.

A big reason why Israel hasn't completely destroyed Iran with nukes is the fact that it's a small country and Iran can take it out. Israel having nukes is also another reason why Iran isn't hitting them as hard, it's to avoid backing them in a corner.

I think that after the current Russia / Ukraine and Iran / US war, it's becoming very apparent to many countries that your nation is only secure if you have nuclear deterrence.

Iran has famously impenetrable geography on its side.

[flagged]

> Deter the US from what exactly?

Just in case this is a serious question, the US has invaded Iran and Venezuela most recently. The US previously invaded Iraq. What do they have in common? They don't have nukes.

After WWII, the southern part of Korean was under American occupation (it was previously under Japanese occupation, but Japan surrendered to the US). It was the US occupation that installed installed the precursor of current government, with elections which had a lot of boycotts/opposition/oppression. Right wing killed a few hundred thousands locals during these times.

To be clear: I'm not justifying anything here, or claiming that you should share this viewpoint. I'm answering your question: how could NK possibly see the US as an aggressor.

Ending the war is one thing. Reunion, I don't see that happening in the next decades. Don't forget how much poverty and indoctrination is there. And who would govern the combined Korea? The two governments are worlds apart.

Ending the war might enable them to grow towards each other. But that will take decades.

Not going to happen. China and Russia won't let it happen, since the DPRK is a buffer state. Kim has his nukes and doesn't want to lose power. Basically Soth Korea doesn't have any allies in the area, aside from US which has bases in Guam and Okinawa and has been unreliable under the current administration.