Moon Jae-in should be wary of North Korea’s history of reneging on its word.

Beijing has three aims, but it all leads back to rivalry with the US.

There is good reason to believe Kim Jong-un is a risk taker and willing to use his power.

Since North Korea lies so much anyway, how should we know what to believe?

With diplomatic options on North Korea thin on the ground, the intervention by the UN Secretariat is welcome.

A leaked Chinese secret memo may be less than meets the eye.

A distinction as a point of law might not work as practical diplomacy.

Hugh White wants Australia to oppose a 'pre-emptive' attack but Australia's complicity may begin sooner than imagined.

Australia should say publicly that it will take no part in any pre-emptive US strike on North Korea.

For all the bluster and threats of war in 2017, impeachment of South Korean's president was the most important event.

We know almost nothing about North Korean special operations, but Saddam Hussein used similar assassination techniques.

Cyber-crime is big business for Pyongyang, and a ripe target.

A North Korean atmospheric nuclear test could well spark a rolling ‘summer of 1914’-style crisis.

The next satellite launch will probably occur in the coming months.

If effective strategy requires realistic aims, then America is in trouble.

This is not a desperate letter from a doomed regime.

If war on the Korean Peninsula does eventuate, the US should see it as an opportunity to forge a better peace.

In Russia's view, real responsibility for the crisis lies with the US.

The North Koreans may very well say no. But there's little harm in trying.

China closing North Korean businesses should not be seen as a shift in approach.

North Korea has apparently reached the limit of what it can achieve with underground nuclear testing. 

Turnbull's rhetoric fails to take into account the fact that North Korea now probably has an operational ICBM.

Robert Kelly says he doesn't know 'anyone serious who advocates air strikes'. But what is his definition of 'serious' if it excludes the US president?

I am constantly asked if war is about to break out. I often have the impression the TV hosts or producers are disappointed I am not more alarmist.

Accept mutual nuclear vulnerability with North Korea or embark on a major war on the Korean peninsula. There is no third option.

The key question is whether Kim Jung-un is developing nuclear weapons and missiles for deterrence, primarily against the US, or for aggression.

Japan is being tested as much as the missile itself.

Has Syria been chemically disarmed?

There needs to be better recognition of the risks involved in not disarming North Korea.

Kong Xuanyou will have to have a thick skin because he is dealing with some of the world’s most prodigiously talented producers of invective.

The obvious wrinkle in the PM’s ANZUS pledge is what happens if the US strikes first and North Korea retaliates by attacking South Korea.

If there is another armed conflict on the Korean peninsula, it's unlikely an Australian government would feel bound by historical precedent or outdated legal instruments.

According to sources on the ground in northeastern China, the new sanctions appear to have set off a diplomatic row between Beijing and Pyongyang.

If you're frustrated that this dispute seems stuck with no way out, here are two things worth thinking about.

The rapid progress of the ICBM program suggests reality is catching up with the rhetoric.

Those of us on the line would appreciate some tangible help in holding back the world’s worst nuclear problem; not just empty words and slogans.

It's likely there was indeed no successful re-entry on the North Korean test, but that should not be immediately interpreted as a setback for the program.

Let's imagine that the US and its allies were determined to prevent North Korea achieving its nuclear force ambitions. What could be done?

There is much complaining in South Korea and Japan that missile defence is too expensive. The time for this whining is over.

'They are casting about, just like we would have done if we had won, for a potential solution to a wicked problem.'

A world in which Japan and South Korea have less trust in America's ability and willingness to defend them against North Korea is one that works to China's advantage.

North Korea’s ongoing, violent history of ignoring even the most basic global rules makes Pyongyang almost impossible to trust.

Shen Zhihua’s remarks and the response on Weibo are just one aspect of a broader discussion over China’s posture towards the Korean Peninsula.

Responding to North Korea’s threats is the perfect opportunity to start a new chapter in the US-Japan-Australia security relationship.

The myth told and re-told in the West is that North Korea, the 'hermit kingdom' and 'pariah state', is cut off from the outside world.

Can Beijing act as a guarantor of regional security and stability? North Korea may provide the litmus test.

Unlike its missile and nuclear programs, which North Korean leaders proudly parade and test, Pyongyang denies it possesses chemical weapons. So what are North Korea's capabilities?

North Korea is thus using ballistic missiles as a form of diplomatic semaphore, in keeping with long-standing habits.

The episode should trigger alarms for other neutrals concerned about the potential for North Korean skullduggery on their turf.

The DPRK has a lot of practice in sending missiles up. It does not seem to have practiced so much on getting things down.