Just because they are a "country" does not mean they are stable. By your definition so is Kenya or hell, most of jacked up Africa. I would hardly call Togo,Kenya,et al... stable
Most of Africa has seen several wars, revolutions, regime changes, and various other upheavals. It would appear the DPRK has effectively suppressed any destabilizing elements, as the only significant events in their ~60 history after the Korean War have been food shortages (which of course, the West/ROK have helped them with as part of the nuclear discussions) and what appears to have been a smooth transfer of power from one dictator to his son.
I'm not going to waste time on semantics, as it seems you're simply trying to make the argument that they're not "stable," and they'll collapse eventually....or whatever.
Well, it's been said for decades (since the 80's at least), that it was only a matter of time, with the food shortages, unhappiness, and so forth, until the DPRK collapsed. It was also argued the regime would collapse when Kim Il Sung (1st "President) died...again, didn't happen. The point is, you're saying nothing that hasn't been said before, and time has only proven the "experts" wrong.
And +1 in agreement with Treetop's reply. If/when they (DPRK or a nuclear armed Iran) do collapse, you're talking about a major upheaval in a nuclear armed nation. Same reason (or at least part of) our great interest in Pakistan.
