This is hardly based on a single incident, and you know it. As to whether or not people agree with it, you know as well that some are ok with it, and some are not.

Since the 60s, this type of ban on travel has been used for Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and North Vietnam, at various times and for various durations. I suspect most people realize that the Republic has managed to stand, nonetheless, and aren't too worried about it.

Why not just issue a blanket warning that if you go there you're on your own and we're not going to help you.

sometimes have to wonder what they are so afraid off.

It's a little different when talking about a random citizen murdering you, as opposed to what recently happened in DPRK when the state killed an American citizen.

Are people really okay with the Federal government telling them where they can go or not based on a single incident? In terms of foreigners having crime committed against them, North Korea is exceptionally safe and if I decided to go and could get in, I would jump at the chance. I've been too many places where the government and others said I was in grave danger only to be met by incredibly hospitable people.

In 2011, was in Syria, just before the war but the Arab uprising was starting in Egypt and other places. I was fairly close to the Iraq border, alone on a bicycle and knew the risks but I sure wouldn't want to be told by someone in Ottawa that I had to turn around and leave. Once the war started, the borders were closed so that would have left no options.

Governments love to spread fear, it's what they do to get support from voters. Lots of people want because they rely on government to keep them safe but we should have the choice. If something happened to me, I'd be fine without government support, they don't provide much protection anyway.

If you go where you were told not to, you should be on your own, period.


You could do that by saying if there is a travel warning, then the government won't offer support but the decision should still be yours. The idea of banning people from traveling to another country is something North Korea does to it's citizens, not something you typically associate with a "free" country.

Yes, agree with this.

I don't really think the govt can absolve itself of its responsibility to its citizens by just saying it won't do anything if they're detained/captured.

What would the American government do if an American citizen was caught in NK after the ban was implemented? Say an American citizen living in Asia decides to join a tour group and NK allows them in (I believe they still do), what would happen if they were caught?

In fact, the murder rate is so low in North Korea that tourists would be far safer going there than staying home.