>Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls. So you're intellectually dishonest then. You reply to my comment

>Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls. So you're intellectually dishonest then. You reply to my comment criticising the framing of an US invasion in the context of ASML export controls, disputing such framing as propaganda and then now you say it's not at all about ASML exports in a thread about ASML exports and instead some pendantic nitpick about the Hague Act? > The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service Declaring war on America and then firing missiles at their cities is also a way for an credible invasion of any country by America to occur. Does that mean then that the invasion of X country by America is a "credible threat" then? Either you using your own made up definition that is so generalized that it is a pointless statement, or No. Because such a scenario relies upon a series of prior actions (and even the mechanics of the invasion itself) that would be considered highly improbable, which is what makes it non-credible. You'd have to explain how such a realistic chain of events could occur given contemporary context.