No I don't believe I strawmanned really at all. My own creation? What is this even referring to? I'm not 'trying to 1-up' you, I'm disagreeing with you. Stop acting like the world is out to get you.
disagreeing with me where? NK is wrong on all counts. they shouldn't be threatening anyone with nuclear weapons. everyone in this loving thread agrees with that statement. the difference is that invading a country over threats is mindless and an objectively poorly thought out decision. sure, with the japan flyover that's different, since it's obviously entering their airspace, but this whole idea of 'forget them lets get revenge on north korea' as if its some single person is sickening. obviously an invasion will result in civilian casualties. there has never been a loving invasion in the world that has never had civilian casualties. its an entirely uneccessary move and there's better, smarter choices that can be taken that won't put people's lives at risk.
threats dont kill people, but loving wars do. obviously if you think starting an armed conflict in response to a possible risk is the right decision, you're worse than those nuclear tests.
How is threatening to devastate massive amounts of populations better than killing a single person? Is that really how you think? If threats were no issue at all the cold war wouldn't have even occurred. Plus it's NK, we don't have a single clue what their intention is, so not taking the threat seriously is the stupidest stuff you could think of in response. Also I don't think a single individual would die in an invasion, and also invasion/war in this context practically mean the same thing.
1) 0 deaths is better than 1. threatening to devastate massive amounts of populations is definitely worrisome and requires the most amount of caution, but starting a war in response to that is the pinnacle of worrisome choices.
2) the only cold war casualties were in vietnam. the whole russia v us thing had no deaths and no nuclear attacks because both parties spent 30 years formulating peace talks and figuring out ways to diffuse the situation. they failed at least 5 times but they loving continued to ensure that nobody on either side would be killed. that's actual loving negotiating at work. the us and korea had the six party talks, which was literally the exact same scenario- the parties wanted to continue building weapons for their own safety. north korea's representative said the same thing, that they want to loving build up their defenses in this age of nuclear weapons.
3) we know their intentions. they already told us their intentions since the 90s, they still loving tell us their intentions. they want to test nuclear weapons.
There really is nowhere you can test a hydrogen bomb without it damaging wildlife and ecosystems, and you're really contradicting yourself by saying damaging these things is bad, yet crashing these weapons into the ocean is not all that bad. You know there is an ecosystem and wildlife in the ocean right? If building nukes and testing them isn't wrong why has pretty much the entire world agreed to control production/outright get rid of these weapons? You really sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
this is where you loving strawman my stuff. i never said that testing a hydrogen bomb was okay. i said that them launching missiles into the ocean (NOT OVER JAPAN, INTO THE OCEAN) is perfectly fine. the missiles they launched into the ocean were conventional, which means the only damage that could possibly be done is by the relatively small explosion or the loving 8 tonne payload hitting an animal. if they launched a nuke into the ocean that'd be a different story, because irradiated water can kill the ecosystem.
they agreed to control production because the nuclear weapons damages neighboring countries. nk testing nukes on their own soil is fine as long as they control the fallout and the site in which they drop it. testing conventional icbms like they did the other day is perfectly loving fine as long as they dont launch it into japan's airspace, which they did, and that's their loving fault
This guy thinks diplomacy is all talk and doesn't sometimes involve kicking someone's stuff in to ensure they don't forget with your allies or interests
thats the exact definition of diplomacy
