How Will US Respond to Korean Rapprochement?

Doesn't the U.S. have to be aggressive vis a vis North Korea? It is the structural necessity of U.S. imperialism to expand militarily to justify both the huge expenditures spent on the military-industrial complex and to project its power in all parts of the world in the service of the expansion of capital. Alliance with fascist groups overseas is a tried and true measure that all U.S. presidents resort to [when other means fail] in order to support the reactionary elements in a country that are the natural allies of U.S. imperialism. Obama helped install a fascist government in Honduras-- as well as rightists and their fascist allies in Ukraine. The U.S. supports fascists and semi-fascist governments in Egypt, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere (e.g. India and Pakistan). President Moon of South Korea is not playing his assigned role as an anti-communist U.S. ally and his rapprochement with the North threatens the raison d'être of the 25,000 U.S. occupation force in South Korea and a vitally important U.S. military base as part of our encirclement of China and Russia. Trump's apparent willingness to go along with this is contraindicative of the logical response of an imperialist power to a reduction of its military dominance in a sensitive region of the world. Predictions are risky but we can perhaps expect a barrage of criticism of Trump from the foreign policy establishment and the right-wing leadership of the Democratic Party as well as sub rosa pressure from the Pentagon and his own party leadership. The U.S. will try and find some way to reject this rapprochement and blame the failure of diplomacy on the North Koreans. It will probably involve impossible demands for the complete destruction of the North's nuclear weapons without a concomitant pledge of no first strike from the U.S. as well as a demand for a continued military presence even after a peace treaty and the normalization of relations between North and South Korea. Stay tuned.