I get your points, some makes sense. However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian c

I get your points, some makes sense. However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK, then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends. If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the rest of the world is to apply sufficient pressure on them. USA is not the de facto leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others. It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis. If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources). That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen right now...). USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and more humanitarian crisis will emerge.