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.

  • 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.