1. "Strategic Patience" has ended as Tillerson expressed in Seoul.  Behind this expression is the option for military action.
2.  One problem with the military approach is uncertainty as to whether military strikes could destroy all of the North's missiles and warheads.  But even if they could, N.Korea would probably retaliate with conventional military forces against S.Korea.  Given that Seoul  US troops stationed in S. Korea are well within range of thousands of artillery pieces, the toll in lives and physical damage would be immense.
3.  Regime Change, Hoping that a different N. Korean leadership might prove to be more reasonable.  It probably would; but, given how closed N.Korea is, bring about such an outcome remains more wish than serious policy.
4. Diplomacy:  CHina's stance would likely prove critical.  Chinese leaders have no love for Kim Jong-un's regime or its nuclear weapons, but it dislikes even more the prospect of N.Korea's collapse and the unification of the Korean Peninsula with Seoul as the Capital.  The question is whether china could be persuaded to use its considerable influence with its neighbour.  Continued conversations with china about how best to respond to possible scenarios on the pennisula clearly make sense.

So it is obvious that China is the most critial and important part to solve Korea Peninsula nuclere crisis.  Coming up next, The Trump administration will give china "some color to see see" by sanctioning some chinese finiancial and commerial business related to N. Korea nuclear program.

Do you agree?
What do you think?