North and South Korea peace treaty?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Since a treaty has never been signed and an armistice concluded the war in 1953. War is technically still going on between the two counties. Would the signing of a treaty end the hostilities between the two?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't know how it'd work, since both claims to be sole legitimate government of the entire peninsula. The armistice is still in effect, though, which is important.

[Beet]

Yes, a peace treaty is the goal of all parties. North Korea stated in early 2016 that, that is the only thing that could lead to eventual denuclearization.

[Blue3]

Since a treaty has never been signed and an armistice concluded the war in 1953. War is technically still going on between the two counties. Would the signing of a treaty end the hostilities between the two?

But the thing is... a peace treaty won't be signed until hostilities end. The chicken and the egg.

[SoLongAtlas]

Since a treaty has never been signed and an armistice concluded the war in 1953. War is technically still going on between the two counties. Would the signing of a treaty end the hostilities between the two?

But the thing is... a peace treaty won't be signed until hostilities end. The chicken and the egg.

^ That and the fact that the two different systems and regimes will always despise each other and guard against a future attack. The status quo is beneficial to SK since it allows more US support than would be present under a peace treaty. There will never be a peace treaty with the NK regime.