Oh, I had no idea that the US arms South Korea with weapons, only that they had some kind of alliance.
Do they also provide Japan with weapons?
(Sweden sells aeroplanes as weapons too, I wish we didn't. Nobody in Sweden likes it but we keep doing it to get money. That's the only argument the government has. Ugh.
)
Japan isn't allowed to attack, they are not independent. They have an army for self-defence but they can't use outside of their country, they depend solely on the US. And Korea is dabbling with nuclear weapons, but they do try and send invitations for peace talks to the US because of their hostility but the US flatly refuses every single time because in the peace talks propositions the nuclear disarmament was never tackled. US hegemony of nuclear weaponry is what drives the hostile countries to the west to acquirer them, in case if something happened. The US pushes for desarmement of the "enemy" country, but the latter doesn't want to lose ground. After all, after Libya declared they got rid of their nuclear weapons the americans attacked their country (Onu did but you can guess ...), tore down the dictatorship and this lead to an unresolved civil war. Now Italy & Greece pay the consequences of refugees dying in their seas. This and American intervention in Iraq doesn't push NK to consider giving up on nuclear weapons thus it impedes all talks for peace. If NK ever got rid of them, being a poor country like you highlighted would make them a very weak target. Americans might attack the country and leave chaos behind them.
You can stem it down to who should hold nuclear weapons, i don't know. We're all stupid countries. Now we even have a new cold war and an american government that doesn't act for the benefit of its people ...
nuclear disarmament