[quote=@Odin] It'd be a misstep on their end because they need nuclear programs to sustain their power. Looking at the middle east, anyone that was even [i]suspected[/i] of having a WMD let alone nuclear capability was met with a kick-in-the-door attitude from the USA and alliance members. Having a nuclear programme is a risk in that regard because it warrants a visit from uncle Sam, but the favorable geographical location for NK means that the USA can't really do anything, because we already know that NK can reach Japan and SK with nukes. Now, 'suspending' the nuclear program I'm assuming doesn't mean [i]proliferation[/i] meaning that they still have nuclear capability, which leads me to infer two things; a) they now have ICBM that can reach the USA entirely as opposed to just the westcoast or b) they are switching to a different doctrine. I don't think this will 'ease tensions' as much as it'll put the tensions on the backburner for 5-10 years before it flares up again. NK is very much a spoilt child in the sense that it wants what it wants and it makes damn sure to let everyone know it or throw a tantrum otherwise. Positive relationships with SK are nice but they're known for cancelling those relationships the moment something goes wrong. They're bargaining chips. I'm doubtful this will be 'the turnaround' towards a more stable NK, and I'm seeing this more as a sign that a different doctrine for exerting power has been crafted. [/quote] alternative read: that detonation which destroyed their nuclear testing area and collapsed the mountain under which their entire nuclear program was based, wiped it out. They haven't tested a thing since then. It's possible they're coming to the table to talk about giving up something they've already lost, in exchange for something. Which could be fine. We'll have to wait and see.