Diplomacy? Hard won and incredibly costly experience tells us, you can't appease any dictator!
They just see it as a sign of weakness and or an opportunity to gouge out more concessions.
The only real solution is reunification! And something South Korea simply cannot afford on her own.
We would wind up with two basket case economies, where there was just one, long before full unification was ever accomplished!
And I fear the north is now in the grip of a completely paranoid madman, with an army of over a million, fanatical brainwashed robots at his beck and call.
I believe the answer is to call this despot's bluff and do what JFK did during the Cuban crisis.
Start building up as for a full scale armed conflict, on the north south border, and apply as much maritime power as can be mustered for the purpose.
This endless emotional and financial blackmail must be brought to an end and replaced with sanity, negotiations and binding agreements; or, a full on hot war!
It may suit China to have Japan focus on her ally, North Korea, so it can use the space created, to have her way in parts of the disputed China sea?
But it would hardly be served by a regional arms race/build up, or a regional nuclear conflict, however limited! And therefore, if she sees that in real prospect, can be expected to bring her much smaller ally to heel!
Rhrosty.

As I have stated in previous posts and blogs, I believe the emphasis on Kim Jong Un as the principal instigator of the current events may be misguided. Kim, who had some first-hand experience of the West when younger, came to power with the apparent intention of changing things. Speaking in public was an abrupt departure from the habits of his father, for instance. It may well be that Kim wanted a more open relationship with the West but is being beaten down by the established figures around him who have a vested interest in the status quo. After all, what need would there be for a well fed and equipped army a million strong if relations were normalised with North Korea's neighbours? The most recent events mean the establishment has had its way, and will have no interest in diplomacy other than the one-step-forward-two-steps-backward negotiations which have characterised its relations with the West in the past.

Sanctions only hurt the poor, and this lunatic is not one of the poor ones.

What's needed is real action to get rib of this guy, or, are we going to not learn from the disaster we helped create in Iraq and Affganistan, whereby a hand full of highly trained, highly paid professionals could have saved billions of dollars, along with thousands of lives, by simply taking out the dictators. Cause after all, if you can take his picture, you can take him out.

Are we really that dumb!

I liked the article. I agree that diplomacy and engagement are the answer. The constant talk about North Korean provocations appears a bit hypocritical to me. After all, their arch enemy has some 30,000 troops sitting on their border permanently and insists on staging war games every year off their coast. Using such pieces of military hardware as nuclear capable stealth bombers and aircraft carriers. Does anyone think that the US would sit idly by whilst North Korea and China played war games off the US coast?
They may have developed nuclear weapons, but they are hardly alone in that. None of the nuclear armed nations have felt it necessary to disarm, and I don't see why NK should be the first.
If we stopped talking up the threat and did business with them, with the free exchange of people across the borders, the regime would soon crumble under the pressure of its own people wanting what the rest of the world has. As long as we keep them isolated, its easy for their government to portray us as evil aggressors.

continued
Or we could take the approach suggested by Rhosty and start a war that will result in the deaths of perhaps millions of people. Or we could simply assassinate Kim Jong Un. But then who would be in power? Maybe someone worse. In any case there would be a period of unrest, perhaps followed by civil war like we have seen in Iraq. You would have thought we had learnt some lessons there, but perhaps not.
Engagement would be the safest bet.
Forget about nuclear disarmament until the rest of the Nuclear states feel the world is safe enough to disarm too and are prepared to lead the way.

Don't be silly Rhys, no one should even think about starting a war with North Korea.

The engagement with North Korea should commence after the war.

I think about 50 one megaton cruise missiles should both start & finish it in one go. Don't think you'll get their undivided, or cooperative attention with much less, & it will be cheaper in the long run.