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.

  • SatansMaggotyCumFart
    link
    fedilink
    -85 months ago

    The world should just let North Korea’s non-violent form of pure communism play out to see how it goes.

    I’d rather trash balloons instead of nuclear weapons.

      • @tyrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        55 months ago

        I think the words you’re looking for are threaten, intimidate, provocative (as the other lemming said), hostile, etc etc.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        -35 months ago

        I would, yes. Provocative? Certainly. Violent? No one was harmed and nothing was damaged.

        • xep
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            fedilink
            -95 months ago

            Yes, that would also be considered non-violent.

            Neither case fulfills that definition.

            • @Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              105 months ago

              Violence intended to near miss is still violence. An attack that won’t hurt you if all goes well is still an attack.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                fedilink
                -85 months ago

                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.

                  • Flying Squid
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -75 months ago

                    I’m not sure why you think that says anything different… shooting over someone’s head is not using force so as to injure, abuse, damage or destroy. Neither is shooting a missile into the ocean.