Kim and Trump have huge egos. It could be this that decides NKs future. Two egomaniacs trading foul words of hate. It suits China up to a point to have NK as their attack dog. But on a strong leash. If the US bans all trade with China for not helping, their economy and harmony would be severely affected. Giving fat boy a special Christmas delivery of his favourite sugar buns would be a wise move.
I don't think its as clear cut as that. US military has intervened in many regions in recent years, despite the absence of strikes against the US homeland in that time. US strikes have certainly not been in kind (and why should they be anyway?). Also what do you mean by recent years? The US-led coalition attack on Iraq in 2003 was pre-emptive, not retaliatory.
Then you're still not correct. For example NATO policy is for the members to provide military support to any member subject to armed attack. This is not limited to nuclear aid only in the event of a nuclear attack. Its easy to argue that the first use of nuclear weapons would be e.g. as the only way to counter a massive and rapid ground invasion of western Europe (in which case it would be NATO using the nukes against overwhelming ground forces). Discussion about nuclear weapons is too often focused on anti-civilian strikes against all major population centre because that's what we've seen so far with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that's not the only or even the most likely possibility.
I'm just glad switching a bulk of my portfolio from domestics to defense (after finding out moderate Hillary lost) is paying off. Thank you based Republican war hawks.
You can hardly screw up with defense stocks in this country. They are safe and bounce around nicely with the news, providing an entry. And we have a war practically every 20 minutes.
NK, China and Russia give a huge boost to weapon's manufacturers and their share holders. Funneling money off into badder weapons which should go to fighting pollution etc.