Commenting on it, Rodong Sinmun Monday points out that the document carrying the hostile policy toward the DPRK fully reflected the U.S. strategy for aggression on the DPRK, a strategy to stifle the DPRK and then put the whole of Korea under its control.

The U.S. is not qualified to say anything about the issue of "security," the news analyst says, and goes on:

It is the hard fact that huge U.S. armed forces have been deployed in and around south Korea.

The U.S. is stepping up the preparations for war while continuously introducing modern war equipment of new types into this region.

Nevertheless, the U.S. posing a serious military threat to the DPRK designated the latter as a "security-threatening state." It is preposterous and as impudent as a thief crying "Stop the thief!"

The standard of the U.S. discerning whether it is a "threat to security" or not is based on the doctrine of high-handedness and dominationism, instead of guarantee for sovereignty.

This is evidently proved by the fact that the U.S. named China, Russia and Iran along with the DPRK as "security-threatening states."

As seen above, the U.S. is groundlessly branding as "security-threatening states" those countries which are against its interests and not in a political and military "alliance" with it.

The "threat to security" touted by the U.S. is no more than sophism for making a pretext to attain its political and military aims.

The point at issue is that the U.S. remains unchanged in its hostile policy towards the DPRK and, on the contrary, is intensifying this policy.

The reality goes to prove the validity of the measures taken by the DPRK to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defence.

The U.S. scheme to realize its ambition for aggression on the DPRK at any cost, labeling it as a "security-threatening state", is bound to face failure for its criminal nature.