South Korea says it will restart anti-North Korean propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts in border areas in response to continuing North Korean campaigns to drop trash on the South with balloons.
Following an emergency security meeting led by South Korean national security director Chang Ho-jin, the officials decided to install and begin the loudspeaker broadcasts in border areas on Sunday, Seoul’s presidential office said in a statement. The move is certain to anger North Korea and potentially prompt it to take its own retaliatory military steps.
North Korea over the weekend flew hundreds of trash-carrying balloons to South Korea in its third such campaign since late May, the South’s military said, just days after South Korean activists floated their own balloons to scatter propaganda leaflets in the North.
North Korea has so far sent more than 1,000 balloons to drop tons of trash and manure in the South in retaliation against South Korean civilian leafletting campaigns, adding to tensions between the war-divided rivals amid a diplomatic stalemate over the North’s nuclear ambitions.
deleted by creator
Better but shittier
More fertile, for sure, if much stinkier…
Is delivery via catapult acceptable? Because we used to do that and the world wasn’t a better place…
Catapult??? Please… everybody knows the trebuchet is better.
You… sonofabitch
They’re also fun to design and build
All wars should be fought with trash balloons and loudspeakers.
Lmao their fight is getting petty. I love it.
I think a better response from SK would be a supermarket floated into NK via baloons.
Weren’t the shit balloons retaliation for the south sending balloons to drop propaganda leaflets?
That was in the description. You didn’t even have to read the article.
So much for the high ground.
Removed by mod
Do you consider firing ballistic weapons over Japan non-violent?
I think the words you’re looking for are threaten, intimidate, provocative (as the other lemming said), hostile, etc etc.
I would, yes. Provocative? Certainly. Violent? No one was harmed and nothing was damaged.
What if I shot a pistol over your head, would that also be considered non-violent? Because it feels very much the same to me every time the DPRK launches these weapons and the J-Alert system goes off.
Yes, that would also be considered non-violent.
Neither case fulfills that definition.
Violence intended to near miss is still violence. An attack that won’t hurt you if all goes well is still an attack.
Not according to the definition I just gave you. Argue with Oxford, not with me.
The definition very clearly says that you have to intend to hit.
