Is there a chance that he is played upon by someone (or a group of people) with an agenda to be in an unsustainable situation where he is forced to resign ? He doesn't look very bright to me after all ...

In the past Hitler started WWII over gaining "lebensraum" or "living room" for the Germans. I see the same here, although the environment is different, and not very conducive to a tragedy on the scale of a war.

Actually, Hitler started the war because of the Polish planned invasion to Germany and the secret superweapons that the Polish were developing. Which was pretty much the same "reason" as U.S. imperialist aggressor troops threatening North Korea.

#1: Does he really believe he could win a war? Do his people really believe that?

Yes, no, maybe. What does it matter to a nutter? Besides, death in a war destroying the U.S. imperial aggressors is a death with honor... so... "winning" is not really all that important. Even if you "lose", you still win because you destroy the evil guys.

#2: Where do you think he will strike first?

A "first" strike would have to happen in several locations to be effective at all.

Japan and South Korea would be logical targets for nuclear missles. U.S. mainland, presumably with biological/chemical attack and saboteurs (destroying infrastructure, poisoning water) would be a logical move. A simple blackout that covers a dozen major cities probably causes more destruction than a nuclear missle, and it's practically impossible to counter.
A handful of "anti-imperialist warriors" with bazookas can probably take out a major city in minutes, no problem. All it really takes is destroying the 2-3 biggest relay stations in the region, overload will take care of the rest. For bonus points, fell a few pylons if you like, or break a dam. That's blackout for at least several days (or weeks), with people panicking, looting and killing each other in the street. The military will be busy shooting at their own civilians to keep up civil order, they won't have time to shoot at you.

Add to that whatever a few dozen skilled saboteurs/terrorists can do in their free time (put some explosive on the central pillar at the local hospital, cut phone cables, bring an airplane down into a building... you get it). There's absolutely nothing you can do against it, except shoot anyone who looks remotely Asian on sight -- and even then you can't be sure.

(On that note, consider how you're being scanned, screened, biometrized, stripped naked, and being nazi-treated in every possible way at every airport. At the same time, almost all the guys driving fuel trucks on the airfield and almost all guys loading/unloading suitcases have a rather Mullah-like appearance and in fact look just like they could be Bin Laden's younger brothers. Are you feeling much safer now? You're welcome. Now consider how many Koreans work in that nearby nuclear power plant and in your local hospital, and in the fire department. Of course you can be 100% positive that they are all "good Koreans".)

Attacking Hawaii, on the other hand, would be a really stupid move, but mentioning it may lead to divert the enemy's forces and sustains fear, uncertainity, doubt.

There is nothing on Hawaii worth destroying, the U.S. have a lot more missles in submarines (or in other countries) than on Hawaii, the same goes for troops. And the few civilians living there are hardly worth the rockets that will take a long time to reach their target and will likely not hit on spot anyway at that distance.
Japan and SK are much better targets. Short range, missles likely to hit, high population density, not much of an advance warning. That is, low chance of antimeasures, maximum casualties. Plus, destroying a rich industry.

#3: What will he strike? Military bases only?

Striking military bases is nonsense. The U.S. did not win World War II by striking Japanese military. They won by killing civilians. Never in history have wars been won by killing soldiers. You win by killing civilians, raping women, destroying houses, burning crops, and salting the earth.

Kill morale and supplies first, then worry about soldiers.

#4: How will he strike?

First, he will strike by talk and threats for years to go, until nobody takes him serious any more.

Then, assuming he hasn't been murdered by some even more insane competitor (or by the CIA) in the mean time, my guess is that he'll come up with a coordinated sabotage/terror strike on U.S. mainland, and nukes onto Japan and South Korea at the same time.

#5 and #6:

Impossible to say, even speculatively. The U.S. might just wipe out NK within 6 hours, or they might not as to not risk hitting nearby allied targets or provoke a counter-strike from China, who might just see missles launching and hit the red button, as a reaction.

It's not like you could fire missles at NK without directly and indirectly hitting two nearby allied countries, and without pointing a missle head into China's direction (which they surely won't appreciate).
Doing a "surgical" counterstrike is wishful thinking, there's no such thing. And doing a nuclear strike at all is something you don't do lightly if you're still a bit at your senses, regardless whether you've been attacked or not.

"But other countries would do it" doesn't make it hypocritical. It's hypocritical if you'd do it yourself, and most people using that term aren't leaders of superpowers.

True, but most people, even if not leaders of superpowers try to impose their views on others just as much. In fact opposing your views that others should not impose their views on the rest of the world is exactly hypocriticism.

But at the end the point that "just because others do it" is not a valid argument point still stands (meaning your 2nd point is still valid).

Does anyone seriously use that phrase with a positive connotation?

I don't know, I was trying to be as specific as possible as to avoid arguments over ambiguity. I've also met some pretty far out people who strongly believe that an all powerful government that controls everything is the best approach to governing. Those people may use "world police" in a positive connotation.

I think big governments that control everything in their own nation (let alone try to control other nations) are the worst thing that can happen, BUT sadly, the fact that they do means that people either support, or do not oppose the idea of that enough to make a difference. Basically people _want_ a world police, but they have a disagreement about who that world police should be. There just isn't enough opposition to that idea anyway.

Mind you, I don't think that a single nation giving up their large government is going to make a difference, this would only work best if people everywhere protested for this sort of thing.

But all this is a moot point - we're not talking about world policing here - N. Korea has made concrete threats against the US. Even if the US doesn't act like a world police, they would have to seriously consider those threats, as would any other nation. Though I seriously doubt there will be a war, on the off chance that there is, it's probably going to be really short and only hurt people in N. Korea.

This is the same crap every damn year. Over and over.... and over again. Yeah blow up South Korea(basically your own people) and Hawaii(destroy a tropical paradise), GREAT IDEAS!

I think the idea is, if you say enough ignorant stuff, you become more famous.

Maybe my opinion would be different if I lived closer to Korea, but:

1. I believe he simply wants to maintain his position. What dictator wouldn't? I suspect that he's going to make a big noise, put on a show, then claim to the people that the fear he struck into the world's hearts is a victory. That the world is too afraid of the mighty DPRK to attack. And now to ensure their safety they need to further develop their strength because the enemy is insidious and will not cease until destruction falls upon everyone (or something like that).

I'm sure he figures he could do some damage, and he could, but to what end? What is there to really gain? I don't think he believes he could win a war. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if his people believe they could win a war if for no other reason than holding on to that belief creates a sense of hope and a purpose to continue living. I think it might be fair to say that the average citizens of any country are happy to offer a simple, one sentence solution like to a complex problem.

2. He won't, an attack puts his position as leader at risk. There are other ways to secure his position.

3. No strike will ever be ordered by him. If anything occurs it will be a general or commander over-zealously 'defending' a position similar to the attack on that one island village not long ago. A similar incident to that will be met with a strong retaliation but offers the best risk to reward for Kim that includes an out. Therefore I suspect this is what we will see.

4. A situation like I described in 3 would be conventional weapons.

5. No secret alliances that would be of support. What would be dangerous though would be if he has means of exporting nuclear weapons to other enemies of the US.

6. No war, only continued tensions. They will continue until their is a coup of some sort or when one in the line of leaders decides he wants a way out.

7. I imagine it will be difficult but I would look to the reunification of East & West Germany for some insight in what to expect. The situation is certainly different but I would use it as a place to begin planning. I suspect after decades of tension, both sides of the border will be hoping more for a new sense of security than revenge.

8. I don't think this is a situation of the US being the "world police". This is the US dealing with consequences from a war that they were involved in from long ago when communism was seen as a serious enough threat to the American "way of life" that a war seemed important enough to start. No doubt there were other political and strategic advantages that were a factor in the decision.

As for whether or not the original war was justified... I'm not sure. No doubt there were a lot of really scared people at the time that were thankful something was being done.