I want to say that it's almost a certain NO. The USA would be in the same kind of political turmoil with an extremely disillusioned public and it's that chaos in our political structure that the DPRK is trying to use and seize to instigate and take a power advantage of. Regardless of who won out of those two it would have created the same internal political conflicts that are encouraging them to flex their muscles and see what they can get out of it.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 24, 2017 6:50 PM MDT
The DPRK problem has existed for a very long time. It's merely a delusion to think that either Trump or Clinton could manage to pull off what many people smarter than either of them could not accomplish.
This is nothing more that political posturing and we would be in the same predicament regardless of which of the two were in office.
I guess the real question is: Who would be the most dangerous in this position as it pertains to NK? Trump through stupidity & ignorance or Clinton through cold, calculated willful intent.
Like it or not...Clinton is a bigger war hawk and much more savvy when it comes to political relations.
I mean, none of our former Presidents have been able to, so there's no reason to think that she could. I can, however, confidently say that she would not cause the end of human civilization over it, which I cannot say about Trump.
Hillary would have solved the North Korean problem by not trying to solve it. She wouldn't have shot America's relationship with China down in flames, so the Chinese would have been keener to slap their "problem child" down themselves. NK can be safely ignored, Jong Un is posturing but it's empty. One missile heads towards the US or Japan, it can be taken out with an interceptor and then Pyongyang is a cloud of fallout. Retaliation is the only excuse the world will accept for using a nuke. Trump's insecurity and insatiable need for approval could well blow this out of the water, however. King Log is always preferable to King Stork, Trump is the latter.