There's a great article in the current edition of Foreign Policy by Andrei Lankov, available here, making a strong point regarding the weak case of the US, and by extension any other powers that care about the issue, with regards North Korean nuclear disarmament. The article shows basically how the negotiations around the issue basically involve the US giving food and energy aid (the latter in the form of light-water nuclear reactors and fuel) in return for, well, not much--a slowdown of nuclear development by North Korea. What the article does not discuss is the possible negative ramifications of such a move, which I've been wondering about.
If the US went ahead and disengaged from the talks, shutting off the US aid and essentially ignoring the issue, this would send an unintended message of indifference to South Korea and Japan, and of course to North Korea. While this would save US Aid dollars and save diplomatic resources, my gut feeling is that this would spark further sabre-rattling and attention seeking from North Korea. This could be deadly enough without them having to use the nukes for the US to be pulled back to the table, but could probably not be deadly enough for the US to become militarily engaged due to the close proximity of South Korea, and North Korea's artillery. This is probably the strongest reason to stay engaged , perhaps by committing just enough to the process to avoid such aggression while not giving the regime enough to keep itself going too well.
The second unintended message would be to other states considering pushing for nukes. Even without holding hostage a friendly nation like South Korea, one only has to consider Iran to think how this could have consequences beyond the Korean peninsular. Such a move could give Iran and other states further confidence in being able to develop, and keep, nukes. Still, this would not be such an important issue, given that the hands of the US (or Israel) will not be tied from such a move in North Korea. The Syrian option will still be on the table where possible. (I believe it is not possible in Iran as their program is more dispersed, better hidden and buried largely beyond easy bombing, but that's a whole other subject.)
The third non-discussed part is the actual strategic consequence of North Korea's nukes. I would actually see this as the least concerning aspect of the proposal, given that North Korea's artillery are already strong enough to deter any military actions against the state there. Their missile program does add further concern by putting Japan and possibly even the USA's West coast within range, however North Korea would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by actually using such a weapon in such a way. In addition, their long-range missiles (the Taep'o Dong-2) probably cannot reach that far and likely have extremely poor accuracy, so risk of long-range damage is low while the risk of military retribution by the US would be large. More to the point, North Korea would gain nothing by trying such things.
Just my 2c...
