CNN: Those North Korea explosions for the press may have been meaningless

[manor321]

Washington (CNN) - What first appeared to be a gesture indicating North Korea might be willing to dismantle its nuclear weapons program appears to have been little more than a propaganda effort for the world's cameras.

Link:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/politics/north-korea-nuclear-test-tunnel-gesture-propaganda/index.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Well, yeah. Duh.

[Polly Hennessey]

2. Here we go again.

Being played for fools. The latest one is the great big letter the NK gave the moron.

[RKP5637]

3. All for the benefit of tRump, sure he loved it and believed it all. n/t

[lapfog_1]

4. underground nuke test sites

tend to be much deeper... so much so that "Blowing Up" something underground in such a hole with dynamite shouldn't even be all that visible if you were standing on top of such a place... you might feel a slight "burp" and maybe there would be a dust cloud.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. Really. If anyone really believed that they did so out of the goodness of their hearts,

Ha! The NKs are up to something.

If they are serious, they should at least have independent and thorough verification that all has been destroyed (once a serious inventory has been gathered). Otherwise, it is all show and tell, solely to benefit NK.

[empedocles]

6. Video coverage

of press trapped in a crowded room at tables

[jberryhill]

7. Gee, you think the DPRK might be deceptive? Golly!

[spanone]

8. I bet don liked them.

[duforsure]

9. Exactly,

And now both sides are positioning for the PR campaign how they are saving the world by meeting, where neither will abide by anything they agreed on, and make it all about PR for themselves. This is just another propaganda stunt from both of these liars.

[Igel]

10. It gets confusing.

"We will decommission this test site."

"Screw that, they're playing Trump. It was so badly damaged in the last test that it's unusable. Look, there's subsidence and cracks in the mountain that reach the surface."


"We've exploded munitions to destroy the test site."

"Screw that, they're playing Trump. The site's got to be still operational because if it was really destroyed you wouldn't see the dust seep out. What, you think there are cracks in the mountain?"


Both are true. Depending on the rhetorical needs of the speaker. It's like the site's in a state of quantum superposition, cracks/no-cracks, usable/not-usable, until it's observed. What's novel is that as soon as the observation stops, it's again indeterminate as to the cracked/damaged state.