[quote=@catchamber]
I believe it was former President Jimmy Carter that met with President Kim Il Sung in June of 1994[/quote]

Oh, yeah, FORMER presidents have met with the DPRK like a bunch. Bill Clinton went over there in like.... 2010? 2011? During Obama's administration. This is the first time we've had current-leader-to-current-leader. [i]I think[/i] it's a significant development.

[quote]If they sit back and wait for the North Korean people to set up a new government, they can potentially end the Kim Dynasty, prevent dignitaries from being assassinated, and let China deal with the refugees and geopolitical fallout that was ultimately caused by their support of the North Korean government for so long.[/quote]

For my money, the only reason China supported the DPRK for so long was to prevent exactly this outcome. I don't think they're gonna be on board -- in fact I know they aren't. For all their roaring economic success, they don't have the natural resources (most pressingly, drinkable water) to support the extra population. We could probably make a great friend out of China if we can navigate out of this without demolishing their last 30 years of progress (and, FWIW, that probably would also result in a lot less suffering in the long run -- China doesn't have the best human rights record).

[quote]The desired outcome is the significant improvement of living conditions for North Koreans, because denuclearization is not practical to pursue or guarantee. Whether this is achieved through economic strong arming or revolution depends on how much backlash the pro-sanctions nations are willing to endure, because a revolution will produce thousands of refugees and millions of deaths. As the power of the citizens increases, the power of suicidally aggressive governments decreases, thanks to the collective actions of tens of millions of sufficiently equipped North Koreans trying to prevent their living conditions from degrading.
[/quote]

My primary objective/desired outcome is security. Riddle me this, because at the moment I can't think of an example -- have we ever successfully induced a revolution against a totalitarian government, without (or, shoot, even with) sending in the troops, which resulted in improvement of living conditions for the people?

Anyway if we ARE truly holding all the cards, denuclearization is a reasonable goal, one that already has China, Russia, ROK, Japan, and basically all of Asia on board. I think it's worth running with that for a while. Probably not going to solve the next 50 years in one sit-down, but it's potentially a start.