How come nobody does anything about North Korea?

Generally countries in the west only get involved in conflicts if they get something out of it, be it directly via getting wealth from the country, or indirectly like curbing successful non-capitalistic economies before they catch on and their own people start questioning the billionaires. The "we're there to liberate people" is just marketing speech.
- I wonder why you say "countries in the west" and not just "countries". It's not like, I don't know, Banín is shouting about North Korea every day and nobody listens.
  
  I don't know enough about how the rest of the world runs to generalise further
- You're saying that no one with empathy has any power to help these people?
  
  People in power in the west are barely moving the needle for their own people sadly.
  Also even if they did, they'd still need a valid cause to start an international conflict I think, it's why Russia tried the "it's actually russians in Ukraine that are being oppressed and we're liberating them" excuse
  
  It’s more that there’s little that can be done that doesn’t also risk making the situation much worse.
  Something like going to war to depose Kim would lead to mass death and risk spilling over into a much wider conflict since North Korea has the backing of China.
  
  It seems as though unfortunately any people with the capacity for empathy never end up in positions of real power... :(
  
  It's not a lack of empathy as much as a kind of educated empathy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. We historically have a notorious and awful track record of nation building, and I think a lot of people believe this boils down to the fact that it's very difficult to impose a national identity on people from outside, even with direct, physical intervention. We have tried to get around this at times by only supporting what we believe are legitimate independence movements which clearly already possess a strong national identity. Unfortunately even those tend to devolve into ethnic cleansing campaigns and dictatorship as soon as we leave. And if we don't leave, then we have to stay there forever and we have to keep interfering every time things threaten to go off the rails and then it becomes paternalistic colonialism.
  Keep in mind too that a lot of people living under oppressive regimes are genuinely damaged people and there is nothing but time that can heal those wounds. They are traumatized, they are angry, they have lost loved ones, they have been subjected to horrors we can only imagine and clinically document, without feeling the fear and emotional scars those things inflicted on millions of people. If you suddenly give them back power again, even small amounts of power, it is in human nature for many to seek revenge for what they've gone through (and not always against the right people). They've learned how to operate within the context of a deeply flawed and dangerous regime, and it is natural to adopt some of the same tools and practices. As resilient as the human spirit is it still is difficult to teach new ways.
  At some point, people have got to learn to stand on their own two feet and find a way to build an equal, fair and just nation for all of themselves, by all the people and for all the people. While we certainly can do a better job of supporting this, we can't do it for them and our attempts to do so have typically ranged from highly questionable to disastrous and extremely counterproductive. We fought for our own freedom, and it is not out of selfishness that we tell them they must fight for their own too. It's not that we enjoy the fighting, it's that as awful as it is, it appears necessary to get that hostility out into the open and understood to be as awful as it is, for a successful outcome to be possible.
  On the other hand, even that hasn't helped in Israel/Palestine where it seems like we've tried almost everything and failed. The fact is, nobody has the answers. We don't know the way to fix this. We are always trying, even when it doesn't seem like it, but we have to be abundantly cautious that we're not making it worse, because we often are. For that matter, we have our own problems, and we haven't figured those out either. Just because we're doing much better than the worst countries in the world or even much better than average doesn't mean we've got it all figured out or even that we're doing anything right at all.
  
  It's one of the most heavily fortified countries with an extreme nuclear power regime out in the mountains. How could a country like the United States help North Koreans without threatening intense military conflict?
  
  no one with political power gets that power through empathy
  
  Is that hard to believe?

Generally frowned upon to invade countries.
Ludicrously costly. Your tax payers will want to know why it's more important than everything else you do with their money.
Immense suffering. Mostly by the people you're trying to liberate but also your own troops and their families.
They have nukes and could probably blow up at least a few regional cities. If the regime is threatened they will most likely use them.
South Korea or China or Russia are the only countries with land borders. China and Russia find NK useful to have arround to annoy US. Seoul is within artillerty range of the border.
Building up a new state in it's place is very difficult. Remember how the Taliban took back power about 15 minutes after the US left Afghanistan?
- That's not how it would play out or herw, but even in the best case scenario, you'd end up with a huge area with rampant poverty and discontent that would take generations to develop. We've had something similar in Germany. Even after thirty years and vast amounts of money spent, East Germany is still way behind and there are areas that have no perspective at all.

Also there’s a city of 20 million people like 10 miles from the border that could get nuked just by conventional weapons. Adds complications

Same reason why no one does anything about the atrocities that happen within the US.
- So.. Nukes.
  
  Part of it.
  How many children have been killed because an insurance company refused payment for healthcare.

America already tried to save the North Koreans once. It was called the "Korean War".
We bombed them back to the stone age, then permanently isolated them from most of the world. Despite having good reasons for the start of the war, America treated NK like Israel currently treats Gaza.
Even if North Koreans tried to forget that America bombed every hospital, every water purification plant, all the electricity production, etc; the Kim regime's propaganda will make sure they never forget.
If we actually wanted to help those people, the first step would be removal of economic sanctions. There is no clean way to remove dictatorship, but the "Arab Spring" model is much more effective and humane than the "Afghanistan War" model.
- Til that I don't know enough about the Korean War. Jfc
  
  Ohhhhh it's so much worse. Here's the intro to the BlowBack podcast S3, which is all about the Korean War https://open.spotify.com/episode/4ZX1YIvtHhxuoOTaH41VNC
- North Korea does not allow its own people to leave. The situation is nothing like Gaza, and to claim otherwise is some dipshit 16 year old tankie nonsense. North Korea is the most oppressive country to have ever existed
  
  If you read the previous comment more closely you'll realize that the commentor wasn't comparing today's NK to Gaza, but Korea during the Korean War to Gaza. That is a reasonable comparison, as nearly every standing structure was bombed.
  
  You have obviously misunderstood me.
  I was comparing the United States actions in the Korean War(1950s) to Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. The mass civilian bombing campaigns, complete destruction of civilian infrastructure, manmade famine, widespread preventable disease, and imposed economic isolation are very similar between the two cases.
  I am not comparing current-day North Korea to current-day Gaza, and I agree with you that would not be a good analogy.

Because that roads leads to war. The moment one country decides it has the authority to overule another's sovereignity because they disagree with what's going on there, it becomes a free for all.
This line of thinking is the very reason why there are two Koreas today, because of two superpowers who thought they knew better and could make a nice profit in the process.
We have a word for this: Colonialism.
- And we certainly don't do THAT anymore.
  If NK was oil rich and off the coast of the US, we'd colonialism the shit out of it.
  It's not because the world is now too enlightened for colonialism. It's because the juice isn't worth the squeeze. NK has nothing of value, and China wants it to stay there as a buffer to SK.

World powers typically let countries do whatever they want to their own citizens, it's only when they do stuff to people of other countries that they get involved.
- Simple and to the point. WW2 didn't happen just because the Nazis were killing Jews, it happened because Hitler decided to barge into other countries.
- More like when it threatens some status quo or be inconvenient for them to deal with or might cause a shift to some power dynamics.
  I mean nobody(western leaders) gives a fuck about whatever is going on in Africa and Asia. And it's quite literally mindboggling how the shit in Urkaine and Palestine is still ongoing without any major consequences for the aggressors other than mayyyybe harsh words or hurrdurr sanctions. Soo..as long as it does negatively not impact then, world leaders don't give a shit about what other countries do.

We all see and hear what goes on over there.
Bullshit.
- Yeah all the terrible shit we see is just a tip of the iceberg.
  
  Why would you believe your media regarding a country they admit is “closed off”?
  Do you seriously believe they execute ppl for having the same haircut as Kim? And then execute ppl for having a different haircut from him?
  They execute generals all the time, then the generals appear alive a few months later. That’s that mystical Juche necromancy for ya.

Nukes. We know they have them and missiles to deliver them. Any situation where a wildcard like North Korea uses nukes in any offensive capacity is terrifying. "Nuclear War: A Scenario" is a great modern book on how things could go to hell if one single North Korean nuclear missile is launched towards the United States.
Artillery. In any case of open war on North Korea anyone within artillery range of the NK border will be bombarded with heavy shelling. Even if it lasted for just an hour or two before the batteries were eliminated the civilian casualties and destruction would be like a large natural disaster. Now imagine if chemical shells were added to the mix, because they have those too.
China has the most leverage to help North Korea on a humanitarian and diplomatic level without risking war, so if it could be done the best chance is through them.
- To add to this, N Korea also has a huge conventional army, and is a very mountainous country. Lots of soldiers+mountains=very bloody to invade.
  This is also why Iran is fairly safe from ground invasion. It's like a gigantic Switzerland, which if you're familiar with WW2 history, even Hitler left Switzerland alone despite kinda wanting to occupy the place. The cost was just too high compared to the benefits, so, y'know, may as well skip it and invade the USSR instead.
  
  Despite what people keep saying, a war in NK would be short and one sided. While they could cause a lot of destruction at the start, after a few salvos their artillery would be taken out by air power. Then their entire command and control structure would be eliminated so they couldn't communicate with their troops at all. And those troops are conditioned to not do anything without orders. So at best they'd be sitting ducks waiting to be taken out. And I'm pretty sure most of them would cost to surrender once it's clear that the regime is gone. There'd be a share of diehards that would choose death over surrender but i don't think that would be a large percentage.

Are you familiar with the Korean war? There was a massive conflict which got drawn out into a stalemate and everybody agreed a temporary ceasefire was preferable to even more destruction.
Trying to topple a regime that has nothing to lose and a highly indoctrinated population is not an easy ask. We can only hope that like most authoritarian regimes they eventually succumb to the weight of their own opression. It's better than torching the whole continent in the name of freedom.
- The difference is that the North Koreans still fight with the same technology as back then while the other side has made some advances.
  
  Even if true, an old nuke will destroy your city just fine, don't worry about that.

Because - improbably, given its track record elsewhere - the world has worked out that the solution to someone killing kids isn't to kill more kids.
- But not after having killed a lot of kids first.
  
  We are still ... learning

China is the answer. Nobody does anything about North Korea for the same reason China doesn't invade Taiwan.
- And this goes back to the Cold War, which goes back to WWII, and the politics of the president and military commanders, specifically MacArthur, who wanted to continue north and take North Korea decisively to keep the Soviet Union and China from controlling it before it could be reinforced by Chinese soldiers.
  At the time, North Korean soldiers were outnumbered by UN forces 3:1, with far more tanks, etc than NK had.
  The UN waffled, and by the time they decided Korea should be reunified, China had shipped in nearly 300,000 troops, and an unknown amount of matériel.
  Fuck the UN. It's their fault this is still going on.
  
  Why “fuck the UN” and not “fuck China?”
  Sounds like the UN could have made better choices, but the real villain (at least in the part of the history you describe) is China. No?

Seoul is so close to the border, it’s within artillery range of NK. Kim can cause all kinds of havoc without resorting to nukes. If provoked enough, he could put one (or more) craters in South Korea’s largest city, without even playing his scariest card.
Then there’s the possibility of a military response from China. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of that.
Lastly, NK has been under all kinds of sanctions for years. It might not be the “anything” you have in mind, but many nations seem to be doing about as much as they can without risking all-out war.

Because north korea only make empty threats and the west are hypocrites and never gave a damn,about internstional law, democracy and human rights in other countries
- Or, just hear me out, because the west doesn't want to enter into a war with China in Korea a second time.
  
  In that case they should stop pretending to care about what i mentioned instead of acting like they care about Palestinians but still buying arms from them and keep great economical relation with the terrorist state , celebrating Israel attack on Iran under of the pretext that Iran is ruled by authoritarian regime while having great connection with Saudis, not pressuring UAE to stop support the RSF in Sudan using UAE, Israeli and USA arms

Ah, the old question about what to do about North Korea, it occupies the minds of many, there are some answers, many lead to more questions, and so on.
The stakes are increadibly high, so we have to tread very carefully.
Let's bring up a few key facts.
NK is a totalitarian state with a huge personality cult surrounding the Kim family.
NK is supported by both China and Russia, they both have a highly vested interest in keeping the status quo.
NK is located within artillery range of SK's capital city, Seoul.
NK's society is vastly different from all of it's neighbours, even the language used in NK is noticably different from the language spoken in SK.
NK has nuclear weapons.
NK does not have a problem ignoring the normal rules of diplomacy.
Now, you ask what other countries can do to help the people of NK, that is a hugely complicated question, which in general is mostly answered with an answer no one really wants to hear:
Support the current regime
For any proper aid to get into NK you need the support of the regime, and they will take the credit for the aid.
I saw a documentary of a film crew following a team of surgeons travelling to NK to help people who had lost their sight, it was a simple operation, preformed and funded by foreign organizations, the regime had only allowed the team access.
The operation took maybe a few min per patient, they replaced a lens in the eyes of the patient, and as soon as the patient was done, they rushed to the portraits of the leaders of NK, got on their knees and thanked them deeply for their graciousness of restoring their eyesight.
This is the kind of society NK is, everything is tied to the leader.
This is the starting point, and you have 26 million people to deal with...
Ok, say that a world power decide that they have had enough with the Kim family and this is worth going to war over.
What can we expect?
Regardless of what countries are involved, Seoul WILL be bombarded.
So now the attacker is hated both in NK and SK as well as probably a lot of other countries.
NK will use their nukes, and possibly other WMD they have.
Then comes China....
China loves NK as a buffer against the west, so they would and have deployed the PLA to save NK.
- I fell asleep a few times while writing the pervious comment, so if it seems cut off, that is why.
  Now, there are a few more things to talk about.
  What is more likely with regards to real change, military action by a foreign power, political collapse, or a gradual change?
  What will have to be done after thing have changed?
  Lets start with 1 first:
  I think we can rule out direct military action by a foreign power, any action will see Seoul in SK destroyed within a day, and even Japan is at a high risk here.
  Political collapse is possible, but not realistic to happen in the current situation, remember that the government has an extreme level of control over the media in NK, this includes extreme control over the smartphones sold in NK, everything you do is monitored, any photo you take with the camera is cryptographically signed on the device so the government knows the origin of any photo spread around in NK, you can see more here: https://youtu.be/czJaA0S2AjE . With this level of control of the media, the regime will probably not fall soon.
  Gradual change is the most probable, but will take a long time, people in SK do send baloons with USB sticks containing SK media, so people in NK are somewhat aware of life in SK. But as I noted earlier this will take a long time.
  Ok lets move on to number 2, what would happen after a collapse of the NK government.
  The most probable thing is that China will come and run NK as a kind of colony, NK lacks a LOT of modern infrastructure, and the citizens will be at extreme risk of exploitation.
  Whoever colonized NK would face the daunting challenge of integrating 26 million people into a modern society, meanwhile other groups will try to exploit the cheap labour NK citizens can provide.
  Bringing NK citizens into modern society with zero oversight will end in disaster, look at Albania as a warning, there was little knowledge of financial scams in the times after communism and several pyramid schemes was established and later collapsed, wiping out 50% of the GDP of Albania at the time and contributed in large parts to the 1997 Albanian rebellion.
  Teaching the NK citizens about the dangers and advantages of modern society will take a long time, it will involve a lot of shattered illusions, plenty of people will want to go back their old ways, other's will want to go full steam ahead, making their own paths without help.
  This is just a small taste of the issues to come...

Countries are not good or bad they don't have friends they have interests. Is always a good rule of thumb when thinking about Geopolitics.

The same reason you never hear from what happens inside abusive households until someone from within speaks up (aka: a "defector")
Edit: As for the follow up questions:
Imagine you live in the "hood" where the authorities doesn't do shit, and you see someone who's part of a gang abuse their child, are you gonna go confront them at the risk of getting your whole family shot to death? That's what MAD is like on the world stage. North Korea has China as an ally, don't forget about that.

We live in a sad world, western democracy with high standard regarding human right are the exception, not the norm.
So are we gonna start war against every dictatorship? Look at the results in Afghanistan instead of freeing them, they now rank worse than North Korea in the economist democracy index not only they got a 20 year long war, but in the end stayed one one of the worst dictatorship in the planet, not really a success
- The western democracies who support the longest occupation? That organized ton of coups? That support genocide??

"Step in?" Well, because the world isn't run by a mom and dad who step in and make governments do the right things.

America was never about helping the people of the world. Many who believe that are mostly victims of propaganda. It’s all about American interests. If it’s in their interest they will give some reason like liberating a people as a pretence to enable military action.
Also to directly answer the question, they have nukes trained on Seoul, have the backing of China which considers it a buffer against western influenced south kr

What exactly are you suggesting we do about it? They’ve got enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to cause millions of casualties the moment it even looks like we’re about to intervene.

Nukes baby!
- Who knew nukes would be terrible for human rights? /s
  
  But it is great for a country's sovereignity

China would be really pissed off about that.
The major problem is what do you do with the massive humanitarian crises you after you remove the regime?You will have to care for millions of people who have had everything given to them.
Tthis is really messed up, what is the economic interest in doing something about it?

They have nukes

You can't treat governments like they're people. The same detachment from the human spirit applies as it does to any sufficiently large corporation, multinational, politburo, royal court, whatever.
Even if your specific nation holds your specific code of ethics and standards, there can be severe consequences to holding all other nations to the same standard.
Unless you're a superpower, in which case you're the oppressor, simply by engaging in diplomacy.
Given all of this, what you're asking for is for one nation to have perfect foreign policy that would compel change in North Korea. Then, all other nations would need to adopt and extend the same policy, but independently and without external pressure.

No one wants the ugliness of a war over NK, but everyone wants their natural resources, estimated to be one of the largest deposit of minerals in the world.

First of all, there are a lot of people willing to die for their country as it is. As soon as people are willing to give up their lives, you're not changing shit. These people didn't grow up like you and me.
Secondly, there is a world of difference between stepping in and stepping in. One of the main reasons that North Korea is so isolated is because of sanctions. That is also a form of stepping in.
Thirdly, we already saw war and foreign meddling in that area. That's exactly why America is the great evil opponent of North Korea. That's not a coincidence or just because Kim Il Sung, Kim Jung Il or Kim Jung Un hated "freedom".
Now you ask, what other solution is there?!
Well, a lot of people are actually working on that. By launching information campaigns and spreading Western/foreign music into the country. Real change comes from within. But please remember that this country is now lead by the third generation of absolute leader.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Stop trying to "liberate" other countries. Don't you understand what that entails? Rampant slaughter of civilians followed by propping up a colonial regime. How many times are you gonna try this shit before you learn? When has it ever worked?
At least DPRK minds it's own business. Imo, the country most in need of a war of liberation is the United States, which not only has a backwards, oppressive regime that's disappearing people off the streets, but also has been directly involved in multiple wars of conquest and aggression, and indirectly involved in more. Whatever you wish upon Korea, let it happen here, let's let China or someone bomb our cities and set up a government they like. Will you be greeting them as liberators? Not so fun when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?
Someday I hope y'all are able to see yourselves for the warmongers you are. I have no idea how liberals are able to convince of themselves as "peace-loving" while saying shit like this.

Because China doesn't want anyone to.

Short answer is that NK is pretty much self-contained. Occasional Kim might rattle his sabre but no one is too worried about it. Until they start making serious threats to the stability of other countries it's just a case of leave well enough alone.
Sure it sucks what the people of NK have to endure but it's not for other countries to tell them how they should live unless they directly ask for help or start threatening the sovereignty of other countries.
As someone else in the comments mentioned, WW2 wasn't an intervention to protect the German citizens that were being persecuted, it was a reaction to German invasion of other nations.

He’s always threatening to nuke countries
Empty threats and geopolitics. It's also complicated because the guy is crazy. What would you do? Also there are a lot of dictatorships that are more dangerous for us. Remember Irak?
Anyway the whole thing is philosophical. Do you want to bomb everyone because they are the bad guys? Nowadays the bad guys are the USA, would you agree if Europe invaded the USA because they elected the ultimate dictator?
There is no answer.
Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something?
Rosie O'Donnell?
He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.
Again, Trump.
- How many nukes going off does it take to ruin everyone's day? One. Modern rationalization is "maybe if we make it small enough", no, it's still one. Not only because it's an environmental disaster even if small, but it crosses a line and once crossed, lines move around a lot. The last thing needed is a nuclear detonation and the world's countries analyze it and determine, "well, it was terrible, but not THAT terrible. Maybe two is the limit."
- I don’t disagree, the US definitely are the bad guys today on the global stage. But just hearing and seeing the stories from North Korea breaks my heart. Has the NATO or any western country tried some sort of diplomatic deal with Kim for better living conditions for his people?
  
  The official line is that North Korea is thriving - it'd be political suicide for Kim Jong Un to accept help.
  The comparison with the US isn't unwarranted. The respective propaganda machines are the reason both countries are the way they are.
  When people are told daily how their country is the best in the world, the ruling class can get away with an awful lot.
  It's 2025, and many places in the US don't even have clean tap water. People are being "disappeared" off the streets by government agencies. People are dying from easily-treatable diseases. The wealthy ruling class live lives of luxury, while poor people work multiple jobs and still exist below the poverty line.
  So, with all that said, do you think Trump would accept a deal that would allow better living conditions for his people? I think we both know the answer.
  
  The problem is, for all the problems the country has internally, a "deal" with the west is going to turn out the same way it turned out for other countries: Forced "market reforms" that really just mean allowing western capitalists to exploit the country's resources and labor. There is no good path for a country that involves western intervention. We'll just make it worse, or at least as bad, but for out benefit.
  Besides, why would they ever trust us? We bombed them to smithereens within living memory and since then have gone out of our way to punish the people living there for whatever reason you choose to believe was our motive. If we cared about the people there we wouldn't have invaded or embargoed them in the first place. And since then it's not like we've stopped acting like that to the rest of the world. If the US cared about freedom and democracy or people's living standards, we wouldn't be allies with places like Saudi Arabia or Israel. We wouldn't have installed right wing dictators in all the countries we tried to stop from having self-determination.
  The best thing that could be done if we actually cared about people's living standards would be to back the fuck off and let people sort out their own politics without a global superpower breathing down their necks. They already fought one revolution, if they really want to change their government I'm sure they could do it without our "help." Maybe if they didn't have an existential enemy they could deal with their own problems more easily.
  
  Well Trump had a go in his first term but unsurprisingly didn't get far.
- Depends if we get the Scandinavian model out of it. Sure would be nice to not worry about well, everything.
- Nuking North Korea is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Not a solution. How has the world forgotten the mastery the CIA possesses over political assassinations and coups? Like, c'mon. A couple of coups could probably at least help the world out. As long as you don't just peace out as soon as the government gets destroyed, or install a dictator. Basically, don't be too much like the CIA.

Not really an answer, but I think this Laibach song vibes well with your question - How do you solve a problem like Korea?

Watch Time Ghost's series on the Korean War.

It's the same reason why the world is leting Israel commit genocide, or not get involved in the Yemen Civil War, or ongoing genocide in Maynamer, or the dozens of current active war zones.
The world simply doesn't care. The wold only cares when the global economy is being threatened.
- It's not that people "don't care". We've tried intervening with force in e.g. Afghanistan, where the oppressive regime was forcibly removed, and military power was used to ensure that elections were held and the results were respected.
  We have observed, several times, that everything goes to shit when we leave. Not only that, but people generally don't seem like it when outsiders take over and tell them how to run their country, who should be allowed an education, and that
  <insert group>
  cannot be oppressed. So a side effect of the armed intervention is that a lot more people hate you now.
  Western countries "aren't doing anything" because we've both learned from experience that military intervention doesn't really work, and been repeatedly told by the rest of the world to mind our own business.
  
  Western countries "aren't doing anything" because we've both learned from experience that military intervention doesn't really work, and been repeatedly told by the rest of the world to mind our own business
  The west and israel literally wanted to overthrow the regime in iran few weeks ago
  
  Kinda shocking to me how anyone can present such a whitewashed take on the Afghanistan War in 2025. It didn't go to shit when we left, it was shit from the beginning.
  We shortsightedly allied with brutal local warlords, and the failure at local politics blew up in our faces. We bombed 100s of villages, losing the hearts and minds of the people. We sent innocent people to be tortured in Pakistani black sites, creating a fanatical resistance willing to martyr themselves. We forcefully changed the main agricultural output from wheat to opium poppy, leading to widespread drug abuse and addiction. I could go on and on...
  I'm not sure if there is a military intervention model that works, but American-style military intervention with mass civilian deaths and warcrimes from beginning to end is a proven failure.