this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
54 points (93.5% liked)
World News
32289 readers
703 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A plane with no weapons circled near some islands and dipped a toe into a tiny sliver of Japanese airspace - over water - in a single pass. Check the map.
Your intellectual insight is to claim that this flight path was entirely designed around that one pass entering Japanese airspace? Perhaps you can share your spy recordings where they say, "surely this is how we will advance our cause".
That flight path with a toe dip into airspace over ocean vs. missiles designed to carry nukes. Do you not understand the difference between offensive nuclear weapons and maybe hearing a plane flying offshore?
Are you afraid of that plane and its flight path? You're using language as if it is a weapon and threat.
Sounds like you have no counterarguments. And I did not issue any personal attacks, though clearly your comment is just a hackneyed attempt at insulting someone with a realistic political understanding. Or do you think it is a personal attack to lightly make fun of absurd claims? One can only guess.
You sound upset and are not saying particularly coherent things. It's okay if you want to take some time to collect yourself, I don't care about the timeline on which you respond.
For example, you seem upset about perceived personal attacks even though I made none, but seem giddy to be insulting me. Ask yourself if this is correct and good behavior and if you believe you are following the golden rule. Presumably you were taught these things growing up.
Re: it being a reconaissance plane, this is still not an actual offensive weapon nor is it comparable to something banned because it was meant for nukes.
Re: DF17s, if your argument is that parity is justified then you would presumably justify Chins increasing the size of its military and weaponry about 10X and establishing several large bases circling the US, right? Or would you interpret this as a threatening escalation that must be met with even more weapons and capabilities encircling China?