Quote: "Perhaps that's the attitude that creates this kind of behaviour? Several nuclear nations, including the UK, have failed to abide by NP and disarmament pledges, by upgrading or improving their capacity - so it's not a massive leap to assume that we've lost the moral high ground in the eyes of countries like NK?'"
No, I rather think the West preventing NK occupying SK in the early 50s and supporting them with enough firepower (including nuclear) and manpower to deter any further invasions, in addition to being ruled by a fookin fruitcake and his son utterly brainwashed by a failed ideology for decades, an ideology utterly opposed by most of the world, who incidentally have imposed crippling sanctions for decades probably has more to do with NK's view of the world.
Quote: "I can't actually see why he wants them - one can only assume that he wants a seat at the big boy table - and given that a military option is totally out of the question, he'll probably get one.'"
What, a leftist who doesn't really understand but says a lot anyway? Who'dathunkit.
He wants them primarily as a deterrent which will ensure the survival of NK and hopefully remove sanctions. He wants them so NK is viewed and respected as a global power. He also wants them in order to strike at his enemies should he perceive the threat level gets too high.
You and I both know SK and the USA will never invade NK. Does Kim Jong Un? Does he truly believe only a nuclear deterrent will prevent that, or is his goal simply to arm NK to the point any action against them is unthinkable? Or is he planning a pre-emptive strike? Remember, this is a man who executed one of his own ministers with an anti-aircraft gun. For falling asleep in a meeting.
BTW, he'll never get a seat on the Security Council. Not a chance in hell. My flabber is gasted that you even typed the words.
by 
