The argument evolved into one of whether conscription is necessary in South Korea. If you want, we can make a new topic for every single tangent we get, but after a while of me purposefully spamming tangent-topics to prove my point of them being annoying, you'll be... well, annoyed. See, this topic can be split into its original purpose, who would win in a war, is conscription necessary, what is the depth of US commitment to South Korea, would Japan join in to help South Korea against the North, and a ton of other things that also involve Iran. It's better if we keep it in one topic.

From a random article on the matter: 'During the talks, the two leaders agreed that having no bilateral peace treaty is an obstacle further cooperation in various fields.'.

Citations aren't necessary unless I ask for a source. However, him calling me ignorant and saying that my receptors are too small for him to cram all he knows in them is a different matter. For THAT, he needs citation that proves me wrong.

I essentially agree with this. India and Pakistan are risky because they're in a mini-cold-war of their own, Israel's in constant conflict in the Middle East, Iran's a religious state and North Korea is ruled by... generally bad people. China, England and France can, I suppose, be trusted, so I don't want them to have nukes for other reasons entirely. I believe, though, that for certain states, their sovereignty can only be maintained through the possession of nuclear weapons. For South Korea, nuclear weapons can create parity with the North, reduce reliance on the US and the UN, and eliminate (I think) the need for conscription. If I were someone in power in South Korea, I'd at least consider dropping the non-proliferation pact to end reliance on the US and increase sovereignty. This same principle of nuclear weapons helping the development of individual states is evident elsewhere, such as the Middle East. Iran wants nuclear weapons to be able to ensure safety from Israeli strikes, while Israel wanted the nuclear weapons to stop all of the middle east from piling on top of it.

Why would it be foolish? Wouldn't it be somewhat of a good idea for them to get a nuclear program down, so they can maybe invest some more money into better Energy for their country, which in turn if done correctly, could boost the Economy?

The North Koreans don't care about economy. They're communist and totalitarian.
I personally believe it is necessary for nuclear weapons to be possessed by some nations. Notice, there have been no direct wars between superpowers since the invention of them. Before, wars were fairly common. They're a deterrent.

Ever heard of proxy war? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars)

If an atomic bomb exploded in North Korea it would drastically change the environment of Northern China, Japan and the entire Korean Peninsula. I don't think the US would fire an ICBM aimed at North Korea.

Yes, that's exactly my point. They have proxy wars instead of actual wars.

Well, I don't have a citation because I can't remember where I heard this; North Korea spent money going nuclear in order to be able to be considered more of a threat to countries like the U.S., which are intent on containing communism. Sure, last time I checked North Korea only had like 7 operational nuclear missiles, but 7 is enough to keep much larger countries from taking advantage of you politically or economically. Those 7 nuclear missiles are being used by just having them, and aren't exactly made with the intentions of a launch at all. It's like a microcosm of the Cold War; they have the weapons but don't want to use them, though the action of having the weapons can prevent certain events from happening which North Korea would find detrimental to their well being.

While it's true that nuclear missiles are mainly used as deterrent and for influence, I believe that North Korea's missiles aren't nearly sophisticated enough to get through the US's or Russia's defense systems. I would expect that Japan had systems in place to intercept them from the US as well, and China might be far enough along to intercept them. The deterrent is very weak, and probably the largest reason it hasn't been invaded is the 1% chance that something goes wrong and it works, coupled with the not-wanting-a-war syndrome.

It's rather offending that you think we Koreans would ever consider nuking our captured hostage family in the north. It's also offending that you think a draft is backwards and imposing, considering nobody has died in the ROK army for decades. You guys are completely in the dark about the true nature of this situation and Korean culture. Consider it Berlin Wall II. That would put it in a better perspective for you.