> 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 ca

> 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.