Death by North Korean nukes?

I don't want to.

Jong Fatty claims to have 60 warheads - reliable sources put it closer to two dozen. Possibly one or two can be delivered by an ICBM. NK also can't manufacture more of them, they have no source of uranium (and China is kicking itself for letting them have some for "peaceful purposes" in the first place).

It was reported today that US military intelligence puts it at around 60. I generally distrust the US "press" but it was reported by several different sources including one that I trust. So I'll take their word over your "reliable sources".

As to the number of ballistic missile deployable warheads . . . one was a surprise. So a dozen would be no great shock at this point. Perhaps they have 20 big "test" devices and the balance consists of the "miniature" ones. I'm betting that those, along with their missiles themselves, have Russian and/or Chinese markings. (The Soviets specialized in very small "suitcase" nuclear devices. In fact, its quite possible that the weapons are really refurbished Soviet era devices. A number of those devices are uncounted for.

North Korea does have massive deposits of of high grade "pitchblend" (uraninite), estimated to be somewhere between 4 and 26-million tons. Their deposits are so rich that the Soviet Union mined pitchblend north of the 48th parallel for years. And then there's Australia contribution through third parties. You really aren't naive enough to believe that China isn't helping them, and not for "peaceful" purposes as they claim? 

Ore they have. Facilities for refining/enriching it, they don't. Converting power grade U235 to weapons grade is easy, similarly using partially enriched U238 to produce weapons grade plutonium. It's the separation of the usable from the unusable that's tough and the Chinese stopped helping them when Jong Il died.
Australia has never supplied uranium to North Korea, neither does it need to - unseperated ore (in the form of yellowcake) is what we export,  NK already has that.

North Korea does have the facilities to get pitchblend all the way to enriched uranium. They've got at least two gas centrifuge plants in operation above ground, probably more operating underground.

And while they do have their own abundant supply of uraninite it easier to start with "yellow-cake", especially if it's readily and cheaply available. (Remember that a LOT of countries are taking nuclear power plants off-line causing a surplus on the market.) And while I have little doubt that Australian product has not been "officially" sold directly to North Korea, the Aussies do sell to countries friendly to North Korea. That would be the route that Australian yellow-cake takes to get to North Korea and Iran. Hell, you can probably find US materials in those same places what with the Clinton's engineering the sale of a big chunk of US uraninite reserves indirectly to Russia.

You're very naive if you think China is no longer on the side of North Korea. The LAST thing China wants is a border with a western friendly State and that's what they would get if North Korea fell and North Korea and South Korea became just Korea once again. It's more likely that China will cut the strings holding the Sword of Damocles over Fat Boy's head as soon as they engineer a line of succession provided that they or the Russians are not behind this whole mess to begin with.

Contrary to your simplistic viewpoint Trump now has no choice but to deal with the situation. Ignoring the problem is what Trump's predecessors have done and that is what lead us to this point to begin with, a two bit dictator holding the world hostage with the threat of nuclear warfare. And our "friends" in Iran are right on their coattails.

Somebody has to deal with it, and the way to do it is assassination. It's been used as a political tool before. That's probably what China intends to do - but quietly.

China doesn't want a Western-friendly state in Korea, but it wants a nuclear war even less - the fallout even from a strike on South Korea could possibly drift back to China, and that from a retaliatory strike on Pyongyang definitely would. China wants to avoid that at all costs. A Western-friendly Korea wouldn't bother them all that much, they put up with Hong Kong being a British territory for 99 years and still tolerate Nauru. Hell, they haven't even made any serious attempt to reclaim Taiwan/Taipei.
China's antagonism towards the US is all for show (and partially in response to Trump's bluster). Economically they rely on Western consumerism, it's their market for the goods they manufacture. They're already threatening economic sanctions against NK and have stopped purchasing their coal.

Assassination? Why that could be described as "cutting the strings holding the Sword of Damocles over Fat Boy's head". Sorry, didn't mean to go "high-brow" on you but I would have thought that someone that uses the genus name for the Tasmanian Tiger would be better read. The Sword of Damocles" is an interesting little parable though. You might want to read sometime. Anyhow, you don't want to eliminate him until there's a line of succession in place that's friendly to the interests of the assassin. Otherwise you might end up with something even worse, blindly bent on vengeance.

As to your other points, you're wrong across the board.

About Hong Kong . . . it was taken from China by Imperial Britain long before the Chinese communist government came to power. And when they did come to power they had bigger fish to fry than to try to militarily challenge the UK and the UK's much bigger ally, the USA (the ones with nuclear weapons that they weren't afraid to use in those days). In fact, they tested that theory about going up against the Brits and the USA in the early 1950's in none other than Korea; how about that. But you can bet that China will one day want to take back Hong Kong, oh, wait . . . they've already done that, and have reneged on most of the commitments that they made to the people of Hong Kong and the rest of the world when the did reabsorb Hong Kong. 

Tiawan . . . the Communist Chinese have been working on taking Taiwan ever since Chiang Kai-shek pitched a tent there in 1945. They're trying to do that politically by insisting that countries stop diplomatically recognizing Taiwan. If not for protection treaties in place with the USA they would have already taken military action to that end. Stop kidding yourself.

Nauru . . . Nauru? Is there a big phosphate shortage in China? Yeah, they switched their "allegiance" from China back to "Formosa" recently. Big deal. That's like what, 10,000-people? Otherwise Nauru appear to have 0 relevance to China, Australia would seem to have a much greater interest due to the distance from that former British penal colony and the fact that there's an Australian Immigration detention center located there, probably a holdover from the days when that island has the Union Jack flying over it.

China is currently at war with the USA. It's a war of the fiat currencies right now but with their trying to claim territories that's not theirs, that rightfully belong to US allies, escalation is possible at any time.

As to China saying that they're not going purchase coal and other goods from North Korea . . . are you referring to the same China that routinely tells such lies as underreporting their annual coal consumption by a couple of billions of tons? And with no way to verify what crosses that border . . . yeah, I trust them.

And as to the thinking that the Chinese wants to avoid a nuclear war at all costs . . . (did you know that China and the Soviet Union were hours away from a nuclear exchange back in the late 1980's, and it was the USSR that "blinked"?), there's a special name for people with such deranged, la la land thinking: causalities.  

Hong Kong was handed back to China when the lease expired, it was a 99 year lease and a convenient outlet for Chinese manufactured goods right up until the USA recognised the People's Republic. Better than 80% of products labelled "Made in Hong Kong" were actually produced in PRC and funneled through the territory.
Given China's recent actions in the South China Sea, if uninhabited islands off the Philippines are militarily useful to them, Nauru would have to be more so and if they had any serious designs on Taipei they'd have taken it while the US was busy elsewhere during Bush Jr's tenure, or by taking advantage of Obama's "placate at all costs" stance. They didn't.

The "lease" that you refer to only covered those areas referred to as the "New Territories". It did not cover either Hong Kong or Kowloon, both of which Imperial Great Britain held "in perpetuity". (Hong Kong was "acquired" as a result of the Qing Dynasty's defeat in the First Opium War in 1842; Kowloon followed under Treaty around 1860.

Communist China put very heavy political pressure on Great Britain to return that entire area to Chicom control shortly after being admitted to the UN in the early 1970's. While Britain would have been well within their rights to keep Hong Kong and Kowloon (and probably the rest of that area, given that the current Chinese government had reached power through questionable means from an international legal viewpoint) they had become a mere shadow of their former self and lacked the testicular fortitude to do anything other than to roll over and let China have their way.

As to Taiwan . . . perhaps you haven't heard of the Taiwan Relations Act which legally binds the USA to militarily intervene on Taiwan's behalf should China make any move on Taiwan's sovereignty? I seriously doubt that the USA will ignore its obligations under that law and that is probably why China hasn't made a move on them, yet; Gee Whizz and O'Bummer not withstanding.

Those man-made islands that China's creating as a slap to the face of international law are located near heavily-used shipping lanes and heavily exploited fishing grounds. They're also uncomfortably close to an old mortal enemy of China, Japan. Don't believe that Nauru fits any of those criteria. So while we all know that China is interested in every square meter of above water real estate on this planet I'm still thinking that Nauru is pretty far down that list. Australia is more likely to get nervous about that little piece of dirt. This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at August 11, 2017 12:16 AM MDT

Isnt "a border with a western friendly state" what they have had for years with south Korea being western friendly. And Japan too.

China does not have a border with South Korea. Crack a geography book or look at a map.

Also consider that the line of demarcation between North Korea and South Korea is not a true "political" boundary. It's a much disputed "demilitarized" zone that's heavily guarded by the military of both sides. It's the product of a 63-year old "Agreement" that came out of a military conflict that neither side won. In theory that conflict could re-ignite at any time and it would be a continuation of that 1950's fighting, not a new conflict. Add some history books to that library trip.