Fulltimestudent
From your description, it appears that nk is breaking down from the inside. Unless that trend changes, then its just a matter of time. All the usa and the south would need to do is wait.
S (atanus).
I think that's the point of the current (NK) hysteria. And, perhaps it colors American and South Korean elite thinking - that if the north gets no help it must collapse. ergo- end of story!
There must be concern at the top to engage in the histrionics of the moment. I see (based on reading of academic material) the problems as being:
1. In a era when the west has been engaged in the game of 'regime-change' in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria, the NK leadership (which is wider than Kim Jong-eun) is likely concerned that efforts may be made to de-stabilise NK and force regime-change. So what they are looking for - and do not think that the ruling family are the ones looking for it - is a guarantee of their existence. A big army is one thing, and now they feel that nuclear arms also provide some surety. But what I think they are looking for is a guarantee of state security
And, in any case if the west did try for regime-change, the question is, who will be responsible for NK then? How can you set up a govt. to do that. Just think of Libya, Egypt and imagine the chaos in Syria if the current problems result in regime change. So, who will/could 'run' NK? South Koreans may not be ready to shoulder the cost, which may be enormous. All of Korea would say No! to a re-run of Japanese occupation (the years 1910 to 1945, when Korea was a Japanese colony have left an indelible hatred for Japan, among Koreans). You could argue a case for China, there are something like 2 to 3,000,000 ethnic Koreans with Chinese citizenship, living in the 'Dong-bei' (north-east) and, Koreans are also ethnically related to the Manchus of Manchuria, so you could argue that China could do it, but at present China does not see a solution, they are only see the problem. So a solution that allowed the the regime to continue, while encouraging change may be the best , though imperfect, answer.Remember no-one thought Myanmar was going to change, but it seems it is now changing. And, China itself, go back 40-50 years who could think of China then, changing to China now. Also, South Korea was no paradise in the post-war years. The Secret police of South Korea were, at times, as cruel and vicious as the NK police are reputed to be.
Of course, all nations change, 19th C USA was no paragon of virtue, but it changed and will likely change some more. So why not be optimistic in regard to NK.
2. Then there is the elite of NK. These 2 to 3 million (some count up to 5,000,000) in the elite group, want something better too, but they want it on their terms. They would not be confident of the continuation of their privileges, if they lose control of NK. So, I suggest, they will work for the continuation of the current regime.
3. New ideas. Its never been easy for any regime to prevent ideas reaching its people. The history of Christianity itself illustrates the point, both in the days of early Christianity, and say later when Catholic Europe tried to insulate itself through measures like the Inquisition.
Today, we live in what some call, a "converging world." We all have to live in a world where ideas have to be accepted and thought out. Not all nations can handle that easily, think of the reaction to universal medical insurance in the USA, when clearly its worked in much of the western world.
I'm sure that the leadership in NK knows that they can't keep outside ideas out for ever. Therefore, I feel they are willing to allow change, but want to keep control for a while longer.
So, Satanus, that likely does not answer your point about 'break-dwon', but what I'm getting at, is that NK has problems that could lead over time to break-down, with a lot of associated human misery, and as the misery accumulated the 'break-down' may worse until it reaches a critical mass.
Faced with a lot of problem answers, why not try the one that's best for the people.