Is North Korea's Leader losing it?

[Montmorency]

Frags:

NK has no downside from this. NK is allowed to be a hyperbolic, tantrum-throwing, 'drama-queen' state. If the said they were going to nuke Japan tomorrow, the vast bulk of the world would presume it is just NK being its usual noisy self. NK is allowed to be obstreperous, because nobody expects them to behave. The rest of the world, outside of China, SK, Japan, and the USA, doesn't much care how much noise they make just so long as they actually shoot a nuke AT somebody.

Nobody, but nobody, is willing to attack NK and defeat them. Terrain and the hyper-militarization/Stalinization of NK would make any conventional attack a ghastly blood-letting for anyone capable of defeating them.

Their nuclear program is the last key element of security for NK. If they have a deployable nuke or 5, the USA and its allies cannot nuke them without losing a USA or Japanese city or more as the price for slagging NK (which, by the way, would give us 15+ years of reduced global temperatures). Same with any special operations effort to whack the current 'fragrant leader.' Can't do it if you know he would nuke a few hundred thousand someones on your team.

And we know he would. We don't think he is crazy enough to strike first and start a nuclear war, but we are pretty sure he would strike back to punish any effort that truly threatens him. He has the willpower for that.

Trump is, apparently, NOT allowed to be obstreperous in kind. Suggesting an actual threat to NK makes them think the 'fragrant leader' will get nervous and blow up somebody -- and more of our allies are in easy range than US targets proper. So our Allies, and our media, are all....a-twitter...over it.

Of course we prefer that our leaders not speak on the same level as the tinpots of the world. Taking vacuous stands degrades credibility. North Korea has less credibility to lose.

Plus if it is or reaches "truly threatening", then Kim will arguably be justified in a pre-emptive conventional attack or nuclear strike.

Now an small but interesting question, given that:

1. The United Nations Command was the formal leader of the war effort on South Korea's behalf, with troops under US operational control
2. NATO members could be obliged to support America in the event of renewed hostilities in Korea.
3. Non-NATO members of the UNC included Australia/New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Columbia, South Africa, and Ethiopia (Scandinavia and India provided humanitarian aid)

Are the countries named as part of the UNC all technically still at war with North Korea, and would they be obliged they reaffirm their commitment in that capacity to the coalition in the event of renewed hostilities?