Tensions appear to have eased in the region recently after officials from Pyongyang and Seoul sat down together to discuss the Winter Olympics.
And some have speculated that the thaw in relations could eventually lead to Pyongyang giving up its nuclear ambitions.
But James Dobbins, a senior fellow at the Rand Corporation and diplomat, said he held out very little hope of that ever happening.
In a blogpost for Rand, he stressed the two countries had held occasional talks for decades, with scant progress.
He wrote: “Kim Jong-un’s latest overture is consistent with similar initiatives launched by his father and grandfather over the years.
“While North Korean leaders have generally preferred to deal directly with Washington, the Trump administration’s current precondition for talks, that the North first agree to give up its nuclear arsenal, is unacceptable to North Korea.”
Mr Dobbins speculated the Kim regime’s approach to Seoul was a ploy to diminish the international threat to the regime and open the possibility of talks with Washington.
But he warned: “It seems most unlikely, however, that Kim will ever agree to hand over his nuclear weapons and dismantle his nuclear and missile programmes.
“The most that eventually might be on offer would be some sort of freeze involving a halt in further nuclear and long-range missile tests.
“Going as far back as the Clinton administration, the US has always rejected such a deal, insisting on rolling back North Korea’s nuclear program rather than halting it in its tracks.
“The North, for its part, has often halted and even rolled back elements of that program, but it has never verifiably agreed to abandon it altogether.”
The view corresponds with that of hawks in the US who say the olive branch held out by the hermit state is a bluff while it continues to work on its nuclear programme.
While the UN has agreed to impose new sanctions on Kim’s regime, there is still a clamour from some for Mr Trump to take military action.
Mr Trump said yesterday that talks were likely to be useless and force could well be required.
He said: “I’d sit down but I’m not sure that sitting down will solve the problem.
“I’m not sure that talks will lead to anything meaningful.
“They’ve talked for 25 years and they’ve taken advantage of our presidents, of our previous presidents.
“I just don’t want to say as to whether or not we’ve had communication. But, but we will see how that plays out.
“And hopefully it can be done in a peaceful way but it’s very possible that it can’t.”
He said of the threat to the US: “They’re not there yet, but they’re close. And they get closer every day.
“And again, this is a problem that should have been handled over the last 25 years before they were this close or before they did have a capability.”