I think you misread his statement. It's either one country or the other has to declare it, not both. North Korea declared war on South Korea in 1953 (and still claims they are at war today), so there is still technically a war.

O/T: World Peace is something of a tricky concept to define. Does that mean an absence of violent organizations? Having all countries ruled by non-abusive regimes/governments? A lack of wars? Simply avoiding a global war? North Korea actively starves its own citizens and imprisons government dissentors into concentration camps, while the United States has history of destabilizing governments who commit human rights abuses as long as it's convenient for them to do so.

I'd argue North Korea is a greater threat if we define world peace as the first two, while the US is a greater threat to last two, if only because they are far more likely to start or participate in wars (especially any sort of global conflict). North Korea is incredibly repressive and a consistent human rights violator, but I don't think anyone considers them a serious contender for global superpower.

Okay, let's see if this makes things more clear:

April 1978 - Coup d'etat - Daoud is overthrown and killed, PDPA (Afghan Communist Party) seizes power.

1978 - Uprisings become common due to the repression, purges and unpopular policies dictated by the PDPA. The mujahideen appear.

December 1979 - The USSR invaded Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government, who found themselves unable to control the situation on their own.

Now let's revise your original statement: "If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen"

Doesn't sound reasonable because the mujahideen existed before a single USSR soldier put a foot on Afghanistan.

They have all sorts of technology (nuclear bombs for example) and a million man army.  What they don't have are basic resources like food and gas.  They could fight a pretty legitimate fight for a month or so.  With the South Korean capital not that far away from the dmz they could inflict some pretty serious damage.  

The two koreas just need to be reunited.  It's ridiculous how lopsided the prosperity is between the two half nations.  

You just have to count the number of countries invaded, occupied and/or bombed in the last 70 years by the US and by the DPRK (North Korea) and clearly see who's been (and still is) a bigger threat to peace and stability in almost every region of the world.

P.S.: BTW it's dozens by the US and 0 by NK.

You know, you said the same thing to me in another thread, which leads me to assume that you're main goal is to rile me up.

You're missing the point. The mujahideen has grown powerful because of foreign investment from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States as a direct result of the Soviet invasion. Without it, groups like Al-Qaeda would either not exist or have any influence beyond a local level.

There weren't reports that Assad had chemical weapons, he did. A batch of them were destroyed in 2014.

The Soviet Union helping to end the war does not excuse propping up a fascist regime like the Kim family and invading the south. American and Saudi support for the mujahideen only happened because the Soviets invaded. Also, why should Russia get involved in messes that America and Europe are involved in? Two wrongs don't make a right.

North Korea isolated itself, it's a part of the Juche ideology, which is much closer to the Japanese fascism than any form of communism. I don't know how you can call North Korea sustainable, the country was crippled by the fall of the USSR and has never recovered since. The whole show is smoke and mirrors, all these bombastic remarks are just to suck up foreign aid.

The only reason that North Korea still exists is because of China, who does not want to deal with American presence at its border nor a massive refugee crisis from the state collapsing on itself. Nuclear weapons are impractical, unless if North Korea is feeling suicidal.

Nothing irrational about it. GBU-43 is not a chemical weapon.

There was a need: ISIS members were taking shelter underneath considerable fortifications.

I'm saying that again because you're points are devolving into absurdity. You're clearly exaggerating with your examples of what war is but I don't know if you're doing that intentionally or that you're just ignorant of what war is. I can't take you seriously when you're doing something like that repeatedly either way. I try to treat everyone as a sensible person that is intelligent will debate using logic but you're going off the rails with this. I'm not interested in continuing conversations with people who are being silly.

sil·ly

/ˈsilē/

adjective

1.

having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish:

"another of his silly jokes"

So, you say that they're not attempting to destory governments, I say that they're trying to overthrow the Syrian government (and the Houthi regmine in Yemen too, for that matter), and you say that my response is not based on logic? It's also because your checklist of what constitutes a war is too limited in today's world, where the majority of conflicts do not involve declarations of war, and where the United States has such power that they can keep the conflict entirely out of American territory, that I gave the North Korean example: it's supposed to be absurd, and if you saw it that way it was the whole point, because you used the exact same logic to say that the United States wasn't at war.