Whenever I see stuff like this I always try consider any possible agenda that these "experts" may or may not have.

There are two options: 1. This is what the experts really believe to be the truth 2. This is NOT what the experts really believe to be the truth

On top of that there are two scenarios: 1. This is the truth 2. This is not the truth

So in total, there are four possible scenarios, on whose probability I won't comment on, but it's definitely not even probability across the board. Some scenarios are more likely than others.

Case 1: This is the truth, and the experts believe it to be the truth

If this is the case, there's nothing to worry about!

Case 2:

This is the truth, this isn't what the experts believe is the truth

In this case, the experts are lying, possible reasons for this may include to prevent a widespread panic or a lot of Americans leaving the United States, probably not a good thing no matter how you look at it, but if Americans really were in danger from a possible nuclear attack, we would hope that the Experts would be honest about the situation with us. The final reason they might lie is because they see the possible need for a future draft, and they don't want people to leave the country for that reason as well. (Again, just speculation)

But, in this case, since the truth is that there isn't a possibility of war, we still shouldn't be worried.

Case 3: This isn't the truth, but experts believe it is the truth.

In this case, the experts really do believe that there is a low chance of war, but in actuality, there is. This means that these experts have gotten their information from bad sources, or maybe they aren't really experts at all.

In this case, we do have something to worry about, because the chances of war with NK are not overblown.

Case 4: This isn't the truth, and the Experts don't believe it is the truth.

This is arguably the worst case scenario because these experts are knowingly spreading out false information and possibly putting the American people at risk, for the reasons previously stated, or maybe other reasons as well.

Anyways, this is just a sort of probabilistic analysis of the article, and I tried to remove any bias I have. Please let me know if you think this is accurate or if I should make any edits, and if any edits are needed I will denote what they are below.

Thanks!