cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18629062

According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    812·
    3 months ago

    What and get invaded by the guys who fly nuclear-capable bombers right along their border and practice invading them every year?

    Last time they got caught lacking, 20% of their population died, many of them burned alive in their apartments by napalm.

    • ahornsirup
      144·
      3 months ago

      You mean that time when North Korea invaded South Korea? They weren’t “caught lacking” they started the war.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        68·
        3 months ago

        The US had been making preparations for war since the late 40s, including dividing the country in the first place and telling the Japanese in the south to stay in place until the US could replace them, massacring villages likely to side with the communists, and getting South Korea recognized as the sole government of all of Korea at the UN.

        War was inevitable, they struck when it looked like they’d have their best shot.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      74·
      3 months ago

      If that happens they’ll probably have all food imports halted. If they can’t support themselves during peace time they sure can’t in war.

      If Kim would like for people to stop practicing to take down his regime maybe he should be more quiet about attempting to develop ICBMs.

    • Rolder@reddthat.com
      77·
      3 months ago

      We’re talking about the same North Korea who regularly threatens to nuke their neighbor and has gone as far as shooting a missile over Japan? Something tells me they are the instigators.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          33·
          3 months ago

          Even putting aside the puppet state argument, does that suddenly make it okay to threaten innocents with nukes?

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            61·
            3 months ago

            Of course it doesn’t, that’s why it’s fucked up that the US has flown nuclear-capable planes directly along North Korea’s border most years for the last 40 or so.

            • Rolder@reddthat.com
              34·
              3 months ago

              Hope you realize there’s a big difference between “can carry nukes” and “actually is carrying nukes”. You could drop one from a civilian airliner if you felt so inclined, doesn’t mean civilian planes are a danger to us all.

              Besides, when the North has a military over twice the size of the south and is constantly saber rattling, it makes sense to keep an eye on the border. Wonder why they are spending so much on their military and not on, you know, their citizens.

              • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                61·
                3 months ago

                Hope you realize there’s a big difference between “can carry nukes” and “actually is carrying nukes”.

                Correct. The missiles were not actually carrying nukes, but they were capable of carrying nukes. North Korea fired missiles that were capable of carrying nukes in response to the US flying bombers capable of carrying nukes along their border to express “If you nuke us, we can at least do some damage”; mutually assured destruction.

                Besides, when the North has a military over twice the size of the south and is constantly saber rattling

                The North is not just up against the South, but against the entire US military.

                Wonder why they are spending so much on their military and not on, you know, their citizens.

                Because if they didn’t, the US would make an example out of them the way they did Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Libya and Yugoslavia.