3 ms·
What he said was: Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties. Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive cas
by DarkKomunalec 9y ago
What he said was:
Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.
Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.
How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
- program_whiz 9y agoWhat I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike" My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
- nazgul17 9y agoThe missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.