Other than Kim's direct threats to do so?
Did he actually [relatively recently] state something along that line that was not conditioned on the violation of North Korea's sovereignty or something similar, i.e. an offensive attack?
Did he actually [relatively recently] state something along that line that was not conditioned on the violation of North Korea's sovereignty or something similar, i.e. an offensive attack?
> A telling blow should be dealt to them who have not yet come to senses after the launch of our ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) over the Japanese archipelago
> Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now
> [The U.S. should be] beaten to death like a rabid dog
> The four islands of the archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us
It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security counsel sanctions following the ICBM launched over Japan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa
>It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security counsel sanctions following the ICMB launched over Japan.
If they were in response, they sure sound like conditional then.
Their playing with fire and pissing match with Islam (including pissing whole populations, funding rogue groups, and their favorite regimes in the region) has already costs all of us dearly, including in Europe. Heck, we still have an influx of desperate peoples from every country they destabilized in the past 10-15 years.
Say what you want about colonial European powers, but scum as it were, it still managed to control 2/3rds of the globe with much more nuance and diplomacy than the barbarians at the other side of the Atlantic.
>Well, maybe you will have some empathy if after america falls, North Korea decides to target europe with russia.
I also don't read many fairy tales presented as political analysis.
Plus, an action like an embargo or sanction can be devastating to a country while still being "non-military". That old BS embargo on Iraq has claimed hundreds of thousands lives for example [1].
In fact, what we do have now is that "non-military" action happening, and no counter-response. So, it's more like them sucking up and taking it, with some verbal threats added to save face.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7...
Maybe. Irrelevant to the evidence you asked for though.
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa
(1) That was actually conditional on future Pakistani decisions. (2) That was a remark by an assistant secretary of state, and the president rejected it.
> If they were in response, they sure sound like conditional then.
Everything governments ever do is conditional by that standard.
Not really, the more shameless governments can do stuff that's entirely unprovoked, and that concerns stuff thousands of miles away from their borders.
The colonial conquest of India, for example, wasn't conditioned on some threat or action from India against the UK.
Let me know if you find it.