The title says it clearly enough. A “no first use” pledge might work much better than threats if we want to advert a nuclear war with, for example, North Korea. Given the size of the country’s army, even a conventional weapons conflict would have devastating consequences on the Korean peninsula. But a “no first use” pledge would probably prevent that as well, since it could include something like “no state will use nuclear weapons as long as its territorial integrity is preserved”. Here’s an article that describes all this in more detail.
Some time ago, I came about this interesting article, which compares the two countries. It’s an interesting point of view that shows how Kazakhstan managed to prosper after giving up its nuclear arsenal whereas North Korea is in economic ruin.
As you might know, on the 7th of February 2016, North Korea launched an “Earth observation satellite”. Governments across the world were probably right in condemning the operation. The same type of rocket can also be used for nuclear warfare. What about the satellite? Well, apparently it’s tumbling in orbit, useless.
Fun fact: there are about 2000 satellites orbiting our planet and an estimated 300.000 pieces of space junk. On average, we’re losing one satellite per year. A collision between two satellites could have dire consequences.