4 ms·
Right but they still make plenty of empty threats especially on a global scale. Nor have their threats to use many of the artillery they have pointed toward Sou
by xnull2guest 12y ago
Right but they still make plenty of empty threats especially on a global scale. Nor have their threats to use many of the artillery they have pointed toward South Korea (including nuclear arms) been fulfilled.
Of course North Korea and South Korea have violent exchange. They are countries founded by settling down opposing armies on a border neither thinks is fair. I do not see how this 'squares' the fact that they are known for making empty threats?
- mikeash 12y agoTheir empty threats are empty because they're either incapable of carrying them out, or don't want the consequences of doing so. They don't invade the South because they know they'd lose. They don't turn the US into a lake of fire because they're unable to do so. But hacking an entertainment company is within their means, and the consequences are not too bad. The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing.
- xnull2guest 12y ago> The fact that they sometimes threaten things they can't do adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. I think it does. I think it calls into question that when NK makes a threat, we can't just assume that they're going to follow up on it. That is, their making a threat adds no information to the question of whether they did this thing. And that's my point. OP argues that since they made a threat we can eat dessert and wash our hands.