A pre-emptive strike would prove North Korea right and throw politics into chaos for decades, for all you know they may just be beating their chest to try and negotiate better terms for themselves. If you strike at them first and they really do have H-bombs they not only could retaliate in a destructive manner but in a political sense they'd argue that they're defending themselves, the's also the issue that such a conflict will also empower the west's problems in the militant groups they're still battling.

North Korean civilians are not our enemy, they're poor people just trying to get on with their daily lives.

US or Russia getting involved would only lead to more conflict.

NK is far too weak to handle SK, China and Japan. The issue with NK isn't affecting US yet, and won't affect Russia. But if NK gets attacked and beaten SK,  China and Japan will have to deal with it, so I think they should be in charge.

Yes. The problem with NK is they are unpredictable and they don't seem to care about territories. We should really do something before they actually manage to hit something and kill people.

Lets say the worst comes to worst and they manage to launch a nuke at Japan. There wouldn't be enough time to stop the nuke from hitting Japan and then, NK is gonna get rekt anyway... Just another country had to suffer in the process for it to happen which shouldn't be a thing at all.

There needs to be consequences for countries who do not follow the laws. Now yes, logically, if I was in NK's position, it wouldn't make sense for me to threaten other countries who are far more advanced than NK is. But if I was in NK's position, I also wouldn't launch missiles over Japan but oh look, they are. The point is, we don't know what the leader of NK or really, what the heads of NK are thinking which makes it a big problem. So, what we have to go by is their actions which most certainly do not suggest good intentions...

Um, are they alive daily? Then yes, they do have daily lives.

Nuke the NK HQ.

I mean unless they want nuclear war, which I highly doubt. It doesn't really matter compared to China, SK and Japan. China has enough nukes to completely destroy all of the korean peninsula, NK could only destroy a small island.

Of course we would win if we attacked North-Korea, but before Kim Jung Un's defeated, he will probably throw some bombs at Japan, South-Korea and the US.

We should show that we're not intimidated (for example by an economical boycot). However, we should still show that we are willing to forgive. Kim Jung Un is someone who's easily offended, so we should be smart and diplomatic.

I don't think it would be possible to do an invasion per land of the HQ without alarming the dictator and he hiding. A controlled nuke (doesn't need to be nuclear) would be more efficient.

As soon as the US is the country to suffer the most from the war, go ahead. Obviously I'm excluding North Korea, and it should also be obvious that such a war is highly undesirable if it has a reasonable chance of further escalation (in practice, this means with China or Russia).