The United States is [i]not[/i], I say again, [i]not[/i] staring down the barrel of any metaphorical gun in the nuclear age. Of the nuclear powers, both those official and unofficial to include North Korea, the capabilities strongly favor the United States' offensive and defensive mechanisms. The United States for years faced a [i]far[/i] superior enemy to North Korea in the vein of the Soviet Union who is still the other most advanced and dangerous nuclear power. Even China, an emerging first world nation, with its enormous economic and military power is not even close; that is to include their remarkable ability to replicate what technologies other nations have, be them the United States of America [i]or[/i] the Russian Federation.

North Korea poses little to no [i]actual[/i] threat to the United States, but they do have the intent and potential capability to make an attack against them despite almost assured failure. While said attack is likely to be extremely ineffective, enough so that nuclear retaliation by the United States is not guaranteed (instead merely an option), the greater consequences are more of a realistic concern. Due to the proximity of the two Korean nations, the only real targets held at risk are South Korea and Japan. The former is at more risk due to conventional threats and other forms of weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea's massive amount of artillery, which can and likely would include chemical and biological weapons. Japan stands far better odds due to positioning and the ability of their allied forces, as well as their own defensive forces, to intercept and take out intercontinental ballistic weapons.

The biggest threat any of this poses to anyone is, strangely enough, an economic one. In the event North Korea did opt to engage the United States, who then reciprocates in kind (where I need note the infamous "Mutually Assured Destruction" is [i]not[/i] American doctrine any longer since the late 1960s and is more along a "flexible response" that could vary greatly based on war plans), the worst scenario is immense regional damage to South Korea and potentially Japan. China has repeatedly stated they have no interest on joint Korean-American forces taking the peninsula, as has Russia. Such a large scale incident would cause great harm to the globalized economic environment and grind the gears to a halt.

There is little doubt the United States would be extremely effective in committing to a limited retaliatory strike, significantly minimizing civilian losses, environmental contamination, political ramifications, because of the policy on the matter, yet the real danger was that North Korea did anything at all. It is reasonable to assume that if they do take any hostile actions, it will not simply be one missile or even their entire inventory, of which is [i]very[/i] primitive I might note, but instead such an attack that would likely be coordinated with an all out attack against their enemies. Doing so almost assures that South Korea and potentially Japan are affected, the continental United States as well as Alaska an Hawaii being probably without real danger.

This is far from an unwinnable war and the only people who are going to really suffer are those who deserve it the least; the people of North and South Korea, to include Japan in worst case credible scenarios. Militarily, despite the immense fortifications of the northern region, there is years and years of planning the United States has made to counter this and innumerable more technologies in the inventory, as well as those only alluded to.

A war is going to hurt. That much is likely.

But a catastrophic war? Very unlikely.