This is unbalanced shit. There are countries that are more dangerous to travel, Ukraine for instance.

Perhaps it's better if people aren't allowed to go there, considering how dangerous it sounds to do so.

I think people should be free to go to any country, but it's an understandable decision.

It depends upon the context. There is an ongoing military intervention in Ukraine, which certainly presents a danger. But Eurovision was just held in Kiev. People from around the globe felt safe strutting around Kiev in a way that I think few would on a state sponsored North Korean tour.

And consider the geopolitics. The US has an embassy in Kiev. The US State Department has no presence in North Korea, and virtually no working relationship. 

The odds that an American tourist is detained by the government and used against our state department are much greater in North Korea than they are in Ukraine. 

This is the type of danger that the US is concerned about. 

The US isn't out to protect Americans from every bad thing that could conceivably happen in a foreign country. They're particularly concerned about the extremely challenging situation of an American being detained by a hostile foreign government.

Yep, you can read about it here. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34627189

This is the first Trump decision that I fundamentally disagree with. It only makes sense if a real war is about to start.

I usually (strongly) disagree with Trump, but yeah I agree with you, if an outright was is about to start then it would make sense to ban traveling to North Korea.

If not, then I'd be against a ban like that. A very strong negative travelers advice? Absolutely, but outright banning traveling somewhere is something I'm generally against.

one of the first things Trump does that I would have done also, makes a lot of sense.

What is the point of banning something no one goes to anyway? :P