I'm curious as to what you think the right course of action would be in dealing with these types? Honest question, although I realise it's a minefield.
The most clear example of a possible solution was Albert Einstein's proposal for a United Nations 'with teeth'.
The majority of the worlds super powers were not happy about this because of course it would mean they too would have to play ball and give up their toys 'or else'. What didn't work on a global scale most likely would work on a smaller scale if the superpowers that remain could agree on any of this but so far even Kim and his bomb seem to not be enough to tip the scales.
Trump being regarded as unstable and untrustworthy by the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't help either, there is an outside chance that with some cooler heads in the White House that a deal could have been made. As it is just about every other government / head of state has been insulted in one way or another and Kim seems to be mainly aiming his aggression at the United States so for the time being this is a stale-mate. And I really hope it will continue to be a stale mate.
All the other options (assassination of the Dear Leader, limited war) other than sanctions seem to be off the table for now, and even the sanctions might be rolled back for simple humanitarian reasons and because they are not achieving what they are meant to achieve.
The very long term future has only two possible outcomes as far as I can see: either we will have a world government, for good or for bad, or we will end up destroying a good chunk of the planet in World War III triggered by some idiot because nuclear weapons will become more and more available until even the most unstable regimes have them. And NK, even if it is pretty bad and obviously led by a megalomaniac, is not as bad as it gets. Pakistan and India are another potential area of trouble.
The nuclear genie will not go back into the bottle, our only option is to try to contain it in a way that strikes large and small countries equally, anything less will not do and will only result in carnage down the road.
The people that point at the mutual destruction guarantee as the thing that kept the world 'safe' for the last 70 years miss the point that 70 years is absolutely nothing on the timescale of the human race, it is a single human life-span and there is absolutely no way that you can extrapolate from that 70 years to the 1000's of years that this would have to hold true for it to really work. Too many 'close calls' for comfort during those 70 years, every single one of those could easily have led to a huge disaster.
So until China, America, Russia, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India are ready to give up their toys you can expect the small fry to continue to want to have theirs too.
I can only begin to imagine the scale and scope of the issue. Humanity is not nearly close enough culturally where such an organization can realistically be suggested.
Sorry if this is naïvety and I can't speak for anyone other than myself but at least for me there's an irrational "love" element that I cannot silent. We fight for political control but my "tribe" is the entire country, not my region. Personally, the day I start talking about how it is economically beneficial to stay in the union is the day I start preparing for the union to dissolve.
I quite like Neal Stephenson's idea in Diamond Age of some sort of enforceable world economic protocol.
Why would anybody be happy letting people with such fundamentally different belief systems make their rules?
Of course this has the potential for conflict as well.
In the mean time we seem to be on a regressive path and for now further unification is over the horizon. The cause - at least, in my opinion - was that the unification attempts that were made were made in bad faith, for short term economic reasons rather than for long term stability reasons.
For example, the US was instrumental in enacting the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, so a government that I don't get to vote for had a direct influence on the laws of my country (UK).
If, for example, Asian and Middle Eastern countries influenced the law of this hypothetical world government in proportion to their population, then the UK might be compelled to execute violators of the drug laws you refer to.
We do need better technology for preventing close calls - institutional technology, communications, information gathering, to prevent misunderstanding. It's the best approach for the world we live in, since we will never live again in a world without nukes.
South Africa had them and gave them up.
But if you're right then, inevitably, they will end up being used.
> World peace, at the macro level, has definitely benefited from their existence.
Yes, for the time being, and you really need to qualify that statement. 70 years is an eyeblink.
> If everyone gave up their nukes, might is right would be the order of the day and we'd be seeing many more major regional wars.
Not necessarily, for instance, none of the countries in Latin America have nukes and I doubt if having them would lead to less war in the region.
The major reason why war breaks out is resources.
> We do need better technology for preventing close calls - institutional technology, communications, information gathering, to prevent misunderstanding.
I think this is contradictory with nuclear proliferation. The more countries and eventually organizations with access to nukes the bigger the chance of an accident, even with technological gizmos to prevent 'mis use' (as if there is any good use...).
> It's the best approach for the world we live in, since we will never live again in a world without nukes.
This may be true, but it does not have to be true. If there is one thing that history has taught us it is that we do not deal in absolutes. Nuclear stockpiles are already down from their high points, which is a trend worth appreciating, at the same time the number of countries with nukes is up. The two will sooner or later lead to either a nuclear confrontation at some level with - hopefully - limited effect (a few billion dead perhaps?) which might teach the remainder that these weapons have no place in a sane world. Depending on where the victims will be and whether or not they were members of a society that believed strongly in having nuclear weapons we might come to our collective senses or we might conclude that having nuclear weapons is the way to go.
You're right that 70 years is an eyeblink. Without nukes, I would expect bloodier wars than WWII every 50 to 100 years. We may still see it yet with autonomous drones, and we'll definitely see it if a realistic, reliable defence to ballistic missiles is established.
I don't see a way out beyond altering the psychological utility function of humans at the genetic level, but no such technology could be created and deployed without it being used for tyranny. We might slowly breed it out of the population, but we'd need a different economic structure that doesn't rely so heavily on competition, and that's not going to happen any time soon.
That depends on where in the world you are looking. There are plenty of places where people are not trying establish domination over neighboring countries. That something is in our nature does not mean automatically that as a society we can not transcend those elements. In fact, almost all of society is an effort at transcending those elements.
We've come a long way in terms of organizing ourselves, we recognize that war is a 'means of last resort' and there are plenty of people who would not support wars of aggression.
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
I think North Korea is a special case because of its relationship to China, which precludes a stronger response. While many would-be dictators will be looking at Kim Jong-un as a blueprint for how to succeed at the "asshole" game, few of them can expect the the protection of the worlds (soon-to-be) greatest superpower.
If we analyse the situation from the Chinese point of view, we can see several objectives. The most important objective of the Chinese, IMHO, is not to rock the boat. China absolutely does not want a revolution in North Korea. One that would almost certainly result in millions of refugees entering China; one that would very likely result in the USA extending its military tentacles into a region adjacent to it; one that may well give the people of Hong Kong ideas the Chinese don't want them having (any more than they already do). China is quite happy to kick the proverbial can down the road. That's not to say that they're not irritated by NK, but as long as Kim Jong-Un doesn't push things too far -- as long as he doesn't do something so egregious that he forces "the west's" hands militarily, he will likely be given a pass by his Chinese patrons.
On the other hand, the west, and specifically the USA, is mired in internal conflict. For some of the reasons you named, but IMO also more importantly for structural reasons having to do with the US's long history of prosperity, it no longer has the will to enter anything other than token military conflicts. The same is even more true of Europe, who have essentially ceased to be players on the world stage. (Russia has, of course, recognised this reality and that is why, IMO, Putin's strategy is to essentially revert to history and become a mercenary country. Partly to as a method of retaining importance; in no small part to ensure China doesn't, with its growing power, get any ideas. The strategy makes sense, though I'm not sure it will work.)
Just to finish off the goals game: what should the US want? Most obviously, they want for NK to stop developing nuclear weapons; that much is obvious. As just mentioned, they don't want a military conflict, since it might lead to a confrontation with China which they are likely to lose badly. (It's about will, not about supposed technical superiority.) What else does the US want? Well, a revolution in North Korea wouldn't be a terrible outcome, for the same reason that China doesn't want it. Ironically, one of the best strategies for doing that is to do nothing -- after all, Kim Song-un is playing this game for a reason: Trump is absolutely correct in pointing out that what he wants is extortion money. So: do nothing. For once, the constant bickering in western countries actually helps!
The big picture, IMO, is one of Chinese ascent and one of US -- and by extension, European -- decline. There's not much that can stop this from happening, as I see it. It is as inevitable as the ascent of America was in the 19th century. This period will be punctuated by heightened risks, as allegiances are realigned in light of the new hegemon. Kim Jong-un, to my mind, has inserted himself into this uncertainty with the goal of hanging on to power without effecting the reforms that would almost certainly see him thrown from power. By the way, we should consider the contribution of western "humanitarian" democracies to this logic. In addition to the conclusions you list for the worlds aspiring dictators, another lesson they will have learned from studying Libya and Egypt is that there's no point in currying favour, in trying to make deals, with western democracies. If there's a revolution, they will align, knee-jerk, behind the banner of "democracy" and "human rights", and the dictator will end up on the wrong side of a firing range.
I'll finish off where I began. Although the picture I've painted is bleak from the point of view of westerners, I don't think there's necessarily that much cause for alarm. The Chinese, from the evidence we have so far, appear to be doing a better job at ruling in their spheres of influence than we are. Look at Africa, look at Singapore (I know; it's not the Chinese in power, but the ruling class is effectively ethically Chinese). They are already ruling Asia, and they're not fucking it up like we are the Middle East. No matter who the hegemon is in 30 years, they will not tolerate some lunatic playing with atomic weapons. So my view is that nuclear weapons will still be around, but I don't necessarily think they will proliferate and become 'normal' weapons which see a lot of use.
[I realise that some of things I've written are controversial, and reflect my politics. I hope if people disagree with me then we can just to it in a kind of intellectual way and not shout at each other, ok?]