North Korea prepares to test missile

[DaveIsWrong]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_missile_34;_ylt=Atmjv0WhGXfeww.4GnQAEcyCscE A

Thoughts? Discuss.

[Against Miik!]

Well looking at it from an NK point of view, they never know when they could pop up on the U.S. invasion dart board. They should have a right to protect themselves. I think they would be foolish to attack unprovoked. As soon as they got one missle off, the U.S. has the power to return with 1000s more.

Although they are a little nuts.

[Alpha Waves]

although north korea are a very secretive nation, i dont trust this information. not after the whole weapons of mass destruction thing with iraq

[DBoons Ghost]

Any and every nation has a right to protect themselves with the same weapons other nations have. It's no one's right to determine whether or not these leaders are actually sane of course.

[Letto]

But the thing is during the Cold War, neither the US nor the Soviet Union would fire nukes because it would only end in mutually assured destruction. Both nations (and probably the rest of the world in the ensuing days) would be completely wasted. And what's the point of being in power if you/all your people and resources are gone?

Now if a radical Islamic dictator were to get his hands on nukes, he would be more likely to actually fire nuclear weapons as a part of Jihad because he believes he is doing Allah's work and there are 72 (or 42?) virgins waiting for him. Someone involved in jihad isn't concerned with mutually assured destruction.

Edit: I still believe all nations have the right to nuclear energy, but when they also have the means to enrich uranium, that's when it gets tricky. I'm pretty sure I solved the problem though. :)

[StreetlightRock]

Someone involved in jihad isn't concerned with mutually assured destruction.

Power is more important to the Mullahs than religion will ever be.

On the Korean topic, it seems like NK is using the threat of a missile test to gain diplomatic leverge with the US, in trying to engage in unilateral talks with them.

[Riva]

Australia is pretty pissed. We're one of the few countries with full diplomatic relations with North Korea, so it's difficult to know if we're simply funnelling the US's concerns or acting on our own accord, but we've been a bit annoyed that they've decided to test in our neighbourhood.

Just an aside: I remember that Smokey and a few Americans were suprised that a North Korean student attended my university. I guess our unique diplomatic status helped things along.

[BassRevelation1029]

let them suceed. While the U.S is looking at a country thats nowhere near developing nukes, Korea's jumping up and down and showing their capabilities. IF they go unnoticed, thats the fault of us.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

This is not good. North Koreans are ****ing nuts

[Atomic Rain]

This is not good. North Koreans are ****ing nuts

All of them?

[BassRevelation1029]

All of them?
yes, all of them.

well, im sure theres one or two...

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

All of them?

A lot of them. They've been brainwashed since they were toddlers to die for their country at the drop of a hat. Ask any Korean War veteran. Hundreds of Korean soldiers would literally throw their bodies at UN machine guns

[BassRevelation1029]

A lot of them. They've been brainwashed since they were toddlers to die for their country at the drop of a hat. Ask any Korean War veteran. Hundreds of Korean soldiers would literally throw their bodies at UN machine guns
kinda like the Iranians. They have a 7 million-man wave army, which has already lined up in the case of a U.S led invasion

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

To be fair, the vast majority of them are paramilitary forces. Conventionally, Iran's got about half the number of troops the US does, whereas North Korea has more than both of them combined

[BassRevelation1029]

Wait, am I misunderstanding you or are you saying that North Korea succesfully testing nuclear missiles is a good thing? Because while the ball has been well and truly dropped on North Korea (although in fairness we're kind of low on options), I don't see how a North Korea that has nuclear weapons capability and is continuing to develop ways of delivering these weapons is a good thing.
I didnt say it was a good thing. If this concerns the U.S any, its completely their fault. They proceeded in making up information about Hussein and nuclear materials, now they're focusing their attention on Iran, who probably wont have nukes in the next 5-10 years. All the while they've rejected bilateral talks with North Korea, saying they wont work. Just look how far these people have gone now.
While i dont really see it as a good thing, I dont see how its bad either.

[Smokey D]

Any and every nation has a right to protect themselves with the same weapons other nations have. It's no one's right to determine whether or not these leaders are actually sane of course.

Well looking at it from an NK point of view, they never know when they could pop up on the U.S. invasion dart board. They should have a right to protect themselves. I think they would be foolish to attack unprovoked. As soon as they got one missle off, the U.S. has the power to return with 1000s more.

The North Korean regime is amongst the most horrific in the world, and every effort should be made to bring about its end as swiftly as possible.

[Shell]

Yeah, let's start some **** with north korea while all our guys are fighting in the middle east. :(

[Syncratic]

I've heard the notion that North Korea won't touch us because we provide them with so much aid, foodwise that is.

I read somewhere that there are infact more American flags in North Korea than the US because of all the aid packages being labeled with the flag.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Yeah, let's start some **** with north korea while all our guys are fighting in the middle east. :(

Seems to me like North Korea is the one who wants to start ****

[Jude]

Now if a radical Islamic dictator were to get his hands on nukes, he would be more likely to actually fire nuclear weapons as a part of Jihad because he believes he is doing Allah's work and there are 72 (or 42?) virgins waiting for him. Someone involved in jihad isn't concerned with mutually assured destruction.

I hate this rationale. They're fundamentalist Muslims, so obviously the normal expectations of sanity don't apply to them :rolleyes:

Why should we be worried if North Korea or Iran had nukes anyway? They're both far less menacing than the USSR and we survived that cold war.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

They're fundamentalist Muslims, so obviously the normal expectations of sanity don't apply to them well obviously
Why should we be worried if North Korea or Iran had nukes anyway? you're an intelligent guy, I'm sure you can figure that one out yourself.

[Shell]

I wonder how many nukes the US has... or other types of weapons of mass destruction...
:confused:

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Why should we be worried if North Korea or Iran had nukes anyway? They're both far less menacing than the USSR and we survived that cold war.

For one thing, North Korea has a history of selling nuclear technology to other groups, like Pakistan

[Jude]

For one thing, North Korea has a history of selling nuclear technology to other groups, like Pakistan
I'm not scared of Pakistan either.

Now Iran, there's possibilities they might sell nukes to terrorists, but I'm not scared of them getting nukes. If they do I'll just move up to my cousins in Canada.

[Letto]

So you ask why we should be worried if Iran gets nukes, then you said you'll move to Canada if they do get nukes? So I guess you already know the answer to your question.

[Against Miik!]

I wonder how many nukes the US has... or other types of weapons of mass destruction...
:confused:

We've been slowly cutting back on our nuclear arsenal since the end of the cold war, but we stock piled so much crap during that time, i'm sure we have more nukes than the rest of the world combined. With this in mind, anybody with one nuke would be out of there minds to attack us with it.

[WhoDidTheElf]

We've been slowly cutting back on our nuclear arsenal since the end of the cold war, but we stock piled so much crap during that time, i'm sure we have more nukes than the rest of the world combined. With this in mind, anybody with one nuke would be out of there minds to attack us with it.


I think I heard the US has enough (nukes) to end the world (all humanity as we know it) many many times over again.

[Against Miik!]

I think I heard the US has enough (nukes) to end the world (all humanity as we know it) many many times over again.

Without a doubt. I don't know where you could find an exact number, whether its in the hundreds or thousands.

edit: Actually, you can wikipedia it. As of 2004, we are apparently in possession of 7000 operational and 3000 reserve warheads. This is the most in the world. Russia has abuot 2200 warheads, however there total stockpile, including chemical and biological weapons, is the largest in the world.

[Letto]

I think it was in the debates with Kerry, a big issue was recovering old Soviet nukes and bringing them to the US for our power industry. Anybody know what became of this?

[PepsiMetal]

Of course they want to test their missiles to actually see if they're useless or functional. If Iraq actually had nuclear weapons, USA wouldn't have attacked. It's the only means of self defense for nations these days.

[Jude]

So you ask why we should be worried if Iran gets nukes, then you said you'll move to Canada if they do get nukes? So I guess you already know the answer to your question.
I meant if Iran is seriously about to nuke us. Pigs will fly first though.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I meant if Iran is seriously about to nuke us. Pigs will fly first though.

I doubt to that Iran would directly nuke America. It's suicide. But they could sell them to terrorists and let them do the dirty work. Or they could just go after Israel. (Which seems to be more evident)

[Jude]

Also, the Iranians aren't stupid. They know that if a terrorist group lets of a nuke in the West then the US government isn't going to sit back and wait a long time before exacting revenge.
Exactly. And given the current situation between the US and them, and the US's known tendency to attack random countries when attacked by terrorists, they know they would be the first target...and that the US could destroy their regime or at least do serious damage to their country. This is why I'm not afraid. I hate to say that our injudicious attacking of arbitrary countries in "response" to terrorism has had some good after-effects, but there they are.

[iceman3019]

let us all hope that kim jong ii suffers from a heart attack or stroke of sorts within the next month . . . the idea that such a reclusive, openly hostile nation is about to test fire ICBM's scares me shitless . . .

[naw mean mang?]

I wonder how many nukes the US has... or other types of weapons of mass destruction...
:confused:
The U.S.A has roughly 12,500 nukes, and Russia has close to 27,000. The United States contains enough nukes to light the atmosphere on fire.

let us all hope that kim jong ii suffers from a heart attack or stroke of sorts within the next month . . . the idea that such a reclusive, openly hostile nation is about to test fire ICBM's scares me ****less . . .
When he dies one of his sons will just come into power.

I meant if Iran is seriously about to nuke us. Pigs will fly first though.
Iran's leader believes the world will end in 3 years. If you believed that the world was going to end in 3 years then im sure youd like to take out some of your enemies beforehand. Iran is very much a threat to Israel and the U.S.A

I'm not scared of Pakistan either.

Now Iran, there's possibilities they might sell nukes to terrorists, but I'm not scared of them getting nukes.
Pakistan already has nukes.
If terrorists get ahold of nukes its a much bigger deal than you think. When we are attacked by a terrorist group we have no country to target so the terrorists dont fear a nuclear retaliation.

I've heard the notion that North Korea won't touch us because we provide them with so much aid, foodwise that is.

I read somewhere that there are infact more American flags in North Korea than the US because of all the aid packages being labeled with the flag.
No Kim Jong IL only allows U.S. aid in their nicest city so we wont see all the malnourishment. When we send aid to North Korea Kim Jong Il tells the citizens of North Korea that we sent them food to send tribute to their great country. North Koreans even blame us when their power goes out, there is no way that there are more U.S. flags in north korea than north koreans flags.

Exactly. And given the current situation between the US and them, and the US's known tendency to attack random countries when attacked by terrorists, they know they would be the first target...and that the US could destroy their regime or at least do serious damage to their country. This is why I'm not afraid. I hate to say that our injudicious attacking of arbitrary countries in "response" to terrorism has had some good after-effects, but there they are.
Thats totally off target. The reason we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 was because the Taliban (Afghanistan's government) was housing Al Qaeda and allowing them to work from Afghanistan, so we invaded and took the Taliban out of power. There is no way we would attack Iran if a terrorist group nuked us.

Of course they want to test their missiles to actually see if they're useless or functional. If Iraq actually had nuclear weapons, USA wouldn't have attacked. It's the only means of self defense for nations these days.
Of course the U.S.A would have attacked Iraq. The U.S.A desnt fear an attack from a country because of M.A.D. We were worried that Iraq would sell the WMD's to a terrorist group and then we'd have no way to retalliate. Saddam Hussein had sold weapons to terrorists in the past so we wouldnt risk that happening on a much larger scale.

North Korea seems to be using their nukes as blackmail for the U.S. to provide aid. They want to intimidate us so we will give in to their needs. North Korea has already tested nuclear missiles that can reach Japan and we have believed that they may have a missile that can reach the U.S. for awhile now.
When a country tests their nuclear missile's range they just fire an empty shell.

[Smokey D]

Kim Jong Il's eventual death is going to be very interesting. When you've got a situation where the leader exercises power through a total cult of personality and the people are effectively brainwashed in many cases, his death could start off a mighty power struggle as the best indicators we have seem to point to no clear line of succession. Given the famine and economic problems within North Korea, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that we'll see a collapsing state with nuclear weapons capability in East Asia. Watching countries collectively try and deal with that should be intriguing, if not rather frightening at the same time.

Worse still, Kim Jong Il does not command the same level of respect as Kim Il Song did. While there is no out and out resistence movement, there is a relatively large degree of internal disatisfaction and as Kim's regime declines, we can expect to see some confusion over the future of North Korea, particuarly as there is no obvious successor to the Dear Leader. If hardliners managed to seize control and attempted to pre-empt reunification with the South, a nuclear armed DPRK is a horrifying prospect.

[Uberman]

I guess I'm learning the wrong language. I don't wanna get nuked when I go to Korea. :(

[PepsiMetal]

Iran's leader believes the world will end in 3 years. If you believed that the world was going to end in 3 years then im sure youd like to take out some of your enemies beforehand. Iran is very much a threat to Israel and the U.S.A

I'd like to see a source of Ahmadinejad saying world will end in 3 years.

Of course the U.S.A would have attacked Iraq. The U.S.A desnt fear an attack from a country because of M.A.D. We were worried that Iraq would sell the WMD's to a terrorist group and then we'd have no way to retalliate. Saddam Hussein had sold weapons to terrorists in the past so we wouldnt risk that happening on a much larger scale.

Saddam never sold any weapons to Al-Qaida, who are said to be responsible for 9/11. And I doubt US would attack Saddam if he actually had any weapons. Don't you think US would attack Pakistan now if they didn't have nukes? But once Pakistan got their weapons, you pretty much have to live with it. I don't think any country was ever disarmed of nuclear weapons.

Actually, I'm pretty sure USA would love to disarm Russia, China, etc... all from nuclear weapons. But that's almost impossible because they actually have them now and could easily use them.

[naw mean mang?]

I'd like to see a source of Ahmadinejad saying world will end in 3 years.



Saddam never sold any weapons to Al-Qaida, who are said to be responsible for 9/11. And I doubt US would attack Saddam if he actually had any weapons. Don't you think US would attack Pakistan now if they didn't have nukes? But once Pakistan got their weapons, you pretty much have to live with it. I don't think any country was ever disarmed of nuclear weapons.

Actually, I'm pretty sure USA would love to disarm Russia, China, etc... all from nuclear weapons. But that's almost impossible because they actually have them now and could easily use them.
well first id like you to do some research before doubting my statement about Ahmadinejad , he believes in a mystic form of hinduism.
Of course no country has been disarmed because of nukes, but we went to war with Iraq because of WMD's which doesnt just mean nuclear weapons. And even so, invading a country with weak allies and not using nukes would not provoke a nuclear attack. Even if we did invade pakistan right now i guarantee they would not use nuclear weapons because we would decimate their whole country. Nuclear weapons are used to deter another country from attacking you with nukes. And no i dont think the us would attack pakistan now if they didnt have nukes.
edit: dont add words to my statements either. i said saddam hussein had sold weapons to TERRORIST GROUPS, there are more terrorrist groups than al-qaeda, so you should read a little more thoroughly.

[Against Miik!]

Actually, I'm pretty sure USA would love to disarm Russia, China, etc... all from nuclear weapons. But that's almost impossible because they actually have them now and could easily use them.

The U.S. still has twice as many nukes as Russia and at least 3 times as many as China, but I guess you can only blow up the world so many times, so I guess it really doesn't matter.

But I don't think the U.S. has a right to disarm any body. To the U.S., Russia and China may someday pose a threat, but i'm sure they feel the same about us. So you can't just disarm a country because they aren't your ally. There are a lot of other countries with nuclear technology, like England for example, and nobody says anything about disarming them. Think about it the same way with N.K. The North Koreans see the world against them, and feel the need to protect themselves. Sure they could negotiate, but they shouldn't have to. It's the prinicple of the matter. They shouldn't have to bow down to the U.S. Nobody should.

[Smokey D]

well first id like you to do some research before doubting my statement about Ahmadinejad , he believes in a mystic form of hinduism.

Ahahahahahahahahaha.

[naw mean mang?]

The U.S. still has twice as many nukes as Russia and at least 3 times as many as China, but I guess you can only blow up the world so many times, so I guess it really doesn't matter.

Actually Russia has more than double the amount of nukes that we have. Russia has close to 27,000 and the U.S. has 12,000. the U.S. has much more powerful nukes than any other country tho.

[PepsiMetal]

well first id like you to do some research before doubting my statement about Ahmadinejad , he believes in a mystic form of hinduism.

Umm, no. He's a muslim.

Of course no country has been disarmed because of nukes, but we went to war with Iraq because of WMD's which doesnt just mean nuclear weapons. And even so, invading a country with weak allies and not using nukes would not provoke a nuclear attack. Even if we did invade pakistan right now i guarantee they would not use nuclear weapons because we would decimate their whole country. Nuclear weapons are used to deter another country from attacking you with nukes. And no i dont think the us would attack pakistan now if they didnt have nukes.
edit: dont add words to my statements either. i said saddam hussein had sold weapons to TERRORIST GROUPS, there are more terrorrist groups than al-qaeda, so you should read a little more thoroughly.

If no country was disarmed of nukes, what makes you think Iraq would have been the first one? Do you think Iraq would watch US forces enter their country, without using nukes? Because that wouldn't make any sense.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

The U.S. still has twice as many nukes as Russia and at least 3 times as many as China, but I guess you can only blow up the world so many times, so I guess it really doesn't matter.

But I don't think the U.S. has a right to disarm any body. To the U.S., Russia and China may someday pose a threat, but i'm sure they feel the same about us. So you can't just disarm a country because they aren't your ally. There are a lot of other countries with nuclear technology, like England for example, and nobody says anything about disarming them. Think about it the same way with N.K. The North Koreans see the world against them, and feel the need to protect themselves. Sure they could negotiate, but they shouldn't have to. It's the prinicple of the matter. They shouldn't have to bow down to the U.S. Nobody should.

Except North Korea is decidedly anti-West. Russia and China trade with the US, and thus would have no real desire to start a war. North Korea tries to be as self-sufficient as possible, and tell their citizens from the day they are born that the United States is evil

[lunchforthesky]

Except North Korea is decidedly anti-West. Russia and China trade with the US, and thus would have no real desire to start a war. North Korea tries to be as self-sufficient as possible, and tell their citizens from the day they are born that the United States is evil
thats because it is. no one appointed the usa as the global police force. north korea has as much right to nuclear missiles as any other nation and it is not for the US to say who has the right to them and who doesnt. of course north korea tries to be self sufficient with the US constantly stirring up a scare against them and clearly intending confrontation in the the future.

[PepsiMetal]

North Korea tries to be as self-sufficient as possible, and tell their citizens from the day they are born that the United States is evil

You mean same way US media says Kim Jong Il is an evil man and wants to start a nuclear war? Or the same way the American media convinced Americans Saddam was a threat to USA? etc... US is very self sufficient as well. It makes all of its military equipment.

It's all very similar, just different sides.

[lunchforthesky]

You mean same way US media says Kim Jong Il is an evil man and wants to start a nuclear war? Or the same way the American media convinced Americans Saddam was a threat to USA? etc... US is very self sufficient as well. It makes all of its military equipment.

It's all very similar, just different sides.
haha nicely put some people just cant grasp the idea that every form of media is biased. i dont live in america but it seems to me that most of their media (cnn, fox news) seems to constantly serve he purpose of the republican state.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

You mean same way US media says Kim Jong Il is an evil man and wants to start a nuclear war?No, Private US media is not in any way comparable with the indoctrination and state brainwashing that takes place in North Korea. North Koreans are taught that the United States is evil and Kim Jong Il is made into a sort of religous idol. And he is an "evil", oppressive dictator -- the US media is not relevant.

Or the same way the American media convinced Americans Saddam was a threat to USA? etc... no

US is very self sufficient as well.lol. No it isn't. It relies on trade with other countries.

It makes all of its military equipment.
How is that relevant?

It's all very similar, just different sides.No, it's not at all similar.

nicely put some people just cant grasp the idea that every form of media is biased
But I'm pretty sure Chrizzle fo' Sizzle does. All media is biased -- but that does not mean that all media is equivalent.

i dont live in america but it seems to me that most of their media (cnn, fox news) seems to constantly serve he purpose of the republican state.
Um, maybe you shouldn't pass judgement on the nature of the US media until you actually have some experience of it.

[Shell]

No, Private US media is not in any way comparable with the indoctrination and state brainwashing that takes place in North Korea. North Koreans are taught that the United States is evil and Kim Jong Il is made into a sort of religous idol. And he is an "evil", oppressive dictator -- the US media is not relevant.

no

lol. No it isn't. It relies on trade with other countries.

How is that relevant?

No, it's not at all similar.


But I'm pretty sure Chrizzle fo' Sizzle does. All media is biased -- but that does not mean that all media is equivalent.


Um, maybe you shouldn't pass judgement on the nature of the US media until you actually have some experience of it.


You are acting kinda neive....
I agree with PepsiMetal on this one... and I DO live in the US.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

You are acting kinda neive....
"neive" lol

I agree with PepsiMetal on this one... so you think

-- the US private media is comparable to the state controlled media of north Korea
-- the US is self-sufficient
-- and that the USA is directly comparable with a repressive police state run by a nutjob dictator

nice.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

thats because it is. no one appointed the usa as the global police force. north korea has as much right to nuclear missiles as any other nation and it is not for the US to say who has the right to them and who doesnt. of course north korea tries to be self sufficient with the US constantly stirring up a scare against them and clearly intending confrontation in the the future.

Except it's not just the United States saying that North Korea should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's pretty much every country on earth besides North Korea

North Korea's been trying to be self-sufficient for most of their history, with the exception of trade from China, their old puppet master

I don't understand how everybody wants the US to "stop being the world's police force", yet they get angry when we don't respond to genocides in places like Rwanda

You mean same way US media says Kim Jong Il is an evil man and wants to start a nuclear war? Or the same way the American media convinced Americans Saddam was a threat to USA? etc...
It's all very similar, just different sides.


http://thatvideosite.com/view/1523.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6485577109014306005&q=north+korea

http://www.humanunderground.com/images/nkposter1.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38686000/jpg/_38686733_ap150banner.jpg

http://ubf-info.de/int/late/sarahbarry200210.jpg

http://www.alttext.com/misc/images/nkoreaprop.jpg


Those sure are a lot of Capitol buildings being smashed


US is very self sufficient as well. It makes all of its military equipment.

But the US has the means to be self-sufficient. North Korea starves its people (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053&q=north+korea) in order to use 22.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army) of their GDP on their military

[PepsiMetal]

-- the US private media is comparable to the state controlled media of north Korea

Fox News - Private company.

Fox news - a biased conservative news agency, and Bush government even hired its employees. Hmm...

There isn't much difference in a privately held media agency that's ridiculously biased towards the government, and a state-helf media agency that's biased towards the government. They're both acheiving same goals.

But the US has the means to be self-sufficient. North Korea starves its people (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053&q=north+korea) in order to use 22.9% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army) of their GDP on their military

He's a bad ruler no doubt. But he has the right to tell his people that Bush is an aweful ruler as well. Because he is. If US didn't have a working democracy, Bush would have easily wrecked this whole country.

Plus they hate US because it's helping south korea, which is again, US sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, which is why most of middle east hates US also. That doesn't mean all people that hate US are evil.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Fox News - Private company.

Fox news - a biased conservative news agency, and Bush government even hired its employees. Hmm...

There isn't much difference in a privately held media agency that's ridiculously biased towards the government, and a state-helf media agency that's biased towards the government. They're both acheiving same goals.
No, it's totally different. I'm not sure why you're talking about a "state-helf media agency that's biased towards the government" because no such thing exists in North Korea -- there is, though, state controlled media whose purpose is the idolisation of North Korea's leader and the indoctrination of the people. There is no freedom of speech or private media.

In America, Fox news is one of many private media oranisations, though it does have a strong conservative bias. There is no suppression of freedom of speech. I hope that you can see the difference between the two.

[PepsiMetal]

I was talking about what the media displays, not how government controls its people. North Korea is a dictatorship communism nation, US isn't. So yes, US news agencies are on US' side, and North Korean's media is on their side. Even if it wasn't government controlled, it would still be biased towards its own nation and people.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

In Britain, we call our nukes our "nuclear deterrent". If the USA asked us to disarm the labour government would say they would comply, middle england would complain loudly because we don't like doing things just because the americans say so, the conservatives would within the week make it policy to maintain our nuclear deterrent and soon yuou'd have people voting to keep the nuclear weapons that they might previously have objected to.