1. It would not. At all. Already simply because a nuke doesn't just kill 1 person, but levels a city, meaning you'll kill many civilians along with him. And you are doing the same old problematic thinking of the US military and Rumsfeld: The wars itself were not the problem in Afghanistan and Irak, but the situation degraded because the US had no strategy on what to do afterwards. It is that what created ISIS and all the problems in Irak btw, killing the dictator but having no strategy what to do afterwards. That's the reason why Bush senior didn't depose Saddam, he knew it would destabilize the whole region, but his son didn't believe it. Kim might be gone, but what will happen next? Will the next in line take the office and continue with business as usual, except now having much more legitimization by the public after that action? Will a Generalissimo take the reign and swear revenge on the US and South Korea (since the south is supported by the US) and maybe nuke Seoul in retaliation? What will China, who still is at least nominally allied to North Korea, do? That's the problem with your approach, you don't stop a minute and think of the damn consequences of your action.

2. In case you don't know, the US are already feared outside of countries with dictators simply because of their overwhelming military might, their past of toppling presidents to install their puppet regime, and simply what can happen if an absolute madman takes office as president. And using nukes for what is essentially and legally an assassination of a diplomat (which would kill thousands, if not millions of civilians along with it) would make the whole world much rather fear the US than thank them for removing Kim. It's much more likely that the EU for instance would put the US at the same level as Russia and China and cut many ties with them.

It's sad that yall seeing that NK continuing to walk all over us and our leaders are too scared to do anything because they care too much about what other countries would thin.

They keep building up their nuclear arsenal and treating the US like a joke. It's a disgrace that they have been able to get away with this all this time. Also the whole Trump and Kim situation is a disaster thats why i brought this all in the Trump thread since they recently just had a meeting.

So many reasons.

For starters, no one knows for certain how many bomb sites there are or which are armed and ready to fire.  They have numerous well-hidden attack sites near the border and countless hiding places that cannot be confirmed.  It wouldn't be so much a tactical strike but a shot in the dark.  You'd basically have to glass the entire country just to be sure.  

But even if a tactical nuclear strike were possible, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea are all in range of radioactive fallout that could easily be carried away in the atmosphere or by sea.  That costs a megaton of bargaining power in all future diplomatic relations, especially if they mean to extract the cost of cleanup and medical care through trade deals.

South Koreans are in a particularly tough spot as 4 Million of them are in weapons range of any North Korean retaliation and if NK pushes the Big Red Button in its retaliation, no nation is close enough to intercept that nuclear strike. Should also be stated that NK has enough conventional firepower aimed at them to commit an astonishingly brutal genocide before the Bomb hits.  Maybe that's okay with you, but for the rest of the Allied nations, they are not okay with that.  Never smart to turn the world against you.

Then there's the fact that China considers North Korea a useful buffer between themselves and Western interests/influence.  China has a small stockpile of nuclear weapons but still more than enough to overwhelm current missile defenses, which is important to keep in mind considering China maintains that it will retaliate against any preemptive attack on North Korea.  So even if you don't consider North Korea to possess Nuclear Deterrence, China certainly does and Russia is becoming an emergent ally to China.  Since both are in range of radioactive fallout, an attack on NK is an attack on their own land.  Both their leaders have cultivated the expectation to respond to military threats.  Launching a nuclear weapon on North Korea could draw both those countries into a nuclear conflict and their combined arsenal/readiness is strong enough to easily reduce your continent to a radioactive wasteland.  Up to you if hitting a bomb site is worth the risk, but I leave you with a Klingon Proverb:  "Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory." 

Since NATO compels Europe to respond, in the event of an all-out nuclear exchange, the world's leading powers are more than capable of ensuring mutual annihilation.  It would be a catastrophic ecological, economic and humanitarian disaster on an unbelievable scale.  FEMA still has vacancies in its senior leadership so it's a bad time to give the Agency the ultimate stress test.  Provided that Carl Sagan's grim prediction of nuclear war is incorrect (The Cold and the Dark: the Aftermath of Global Nuclear War), South America and great swaths of Africa could wind up taking the mantle of civilization by sheer virtue of not availing themselves as nuclear targets (and if Carl Sagan is correct, humanity likely dies off in a generation or two at best).  

So I guess you've got the right idea if your endgame is trading bottle caps for dirty water in the United Confederacy of Venezuela. 

TL;DR: it provokes the genocide of your allies, cripples your negotiating power, threatens your economy, and thrusts you into existential peril.  Since you don't even know for certain where your intended target is, it's probably the dumbest of available options.  "We attack them with hummus."  Okay, one of the dumbest available options.

You say he is doing a great job and I am wondering what has he done.

Lets break down a few things I have not see

Mexico is not paying for the wall

He stated he would fix Obamacare but did nothing, pushed it to Congress and neither did he help produce anything better but instead just messed up whats already there

Said he would fix the Trade deficit but the latest reports shows the absolute complete opposite.  It actually grown to record levels instead

Said we would be seeing Economic growth over 4% but here we are today, Nope

Said he would bring down the deficit, Nope record levels now.

Said NK would be denuclearized and actually made statements that they are but here we are today, Nope

Fix problems in the VA, Nope

Well, he still has 2 more years so may be he can make it happen but the way things are going and how incompetent his administration is, I highly doubt it.

1. In the video you posted, they stated that if you don't have insurance you get charged fake prices because you can't choose who gets to perform certain tasks such as surgery. This is what happens when a corrupt federal government is in charge. Instead giving power to the state government and the states allow companies to bid who gets to surgeries, chemo, therapy, etc. 

2. Kind of like how Bernie Sander said White people don't know life in the ghetto. Hilliary said half of Trump supporters are deplorables. Those are horrible things to say.

3. The articles you posted are from known bias websites. You can look at pretty much any industry and see outsourcing besides China. We have to stop letting China cheat the system.

They are not just acting tough. If they said they would build more nukes and id not then that would be acting tough. Instead they have been building up their nuclear arsenal and have threatened us with it on multiple occasions.

Yeah Trump should have continued his "fire and fury" rhetoric and NK would not be a problem today. We need a President that willing to run the full mile not a pussy that becomes friends with a dictator.

Wow. You literally went with the worst case, and the least likely scenario .

1. We have satellite informtion that tells us where their bomb sites are. If we bomb these sites and NK tries to retaliate then they will reveal the rest of their sites making it easy for us to bomb.

2. Ok, maybe not use nukes but other types of bombs that will be able to destroy their bomb sites and not cause damage to surrounding areas.

3. If we go in without letting SK know then NK might not go after them. Also im sure that their are procedures already set in place for a NK attack on SK.

4. China and Russia won't stick their heads out for NK because they would lose in a war with the US.

5. Other world leaders won't retaliate because they don't like NK and probably want Kim gone too.

Actually, that gets avoided when the government is in charge, just look at any country in the world other than the US. Companies already bid who gets surgeries, therapies and so on by gouging the shit out of the people, in other words if you don't have money you're fucked.

The government doesn't discriminate here, and has a far bigger and better position to negotiate the prices for medicine than any company does. Not only represent they the entirety of the US citizens and not just parts of it, which allows for more severe negotiating tactics (like telling them to lower the prices or risking not allowing the medicine on the market, period), it doesn't disallow private insurance like it's so often stated. The federal government would set the baseline, and any private insurer would just have to improve upon them (like, offering private rooms instead of shared ones) to justify paying extra for them.

@bolded: Well, why voting a corrupt executive into President in the first place, then?

If I could chime in here... Considering that "trauma" is a daily occurrence in my fields... It all really depends on the individual.

For some, the shock can be an extreme case and the mind will reject it from memory almost instantly... And then it takes a catalyst to "kick start" that memory at a later date. I.E. Seeing the criminal again.

For others they can't forget and will often spend every waking moment reliving the incident and can pick out every single minutia.

And then you have the time-issue where the details of the incident start to skew the longer you leave it... Which is why after a traumatic event, emergency services usually have a de-brief so that everyone has the right details... That means the individual can be telling the truth, but the details just won't add up.

...Not saying whether this woman is being truthful or a liar, that's not my job to decide, but the legal system... It's just not always black and white.

And despite thinking it so unlikely, you backed away from launching a nuclear strike on your second point.  Though using conventional weapons is an entirely different scenario, it looks like I answered your initial question to your satisfaction.