I'm not sure where this comes from, but you're now the second person I see on HN to say this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29896969). Is this "common knowledge" in the US or something?
Here is what I said the last time:
>> The US and KP are technically still at war (the Korean war stopped with a cease fire, not a treaty) and the US and its allies levy sanctions on them that hurt.
> Technically, I don't think the US and North Korea ever been at war. South Korea and North Korea are technically still at war though, as they signed the treaty with each other, not the US.
The conflict with North Korea ended with an armistice, not a formal treaty. The armistice intended for peace treaty discussions to start 3 months later... and they never really did.
The US, UN Command, and North Korea are still operating under a temporary cease-fire that's now basically 70 years old. (I don't think South Korea even signed the armistice).
> acting like they are at war, thus they aren't at war
It matters legally that you are technically at war even if you aren't acting like it. It allows the specific wartime actions.
South Korea this matters and the UN as well. North Korea is actively sanctioned as a result of not being at peace.
somehow, I don't think that those are the people that are being targeted. it's the "elite" who actually have internet access, and can also eat.
those who make the decisions, and those who are friends of those who make the decisions would be the ones affected by the internet being down, not those who can barely eat and obviously don't have internet access.
> The United States rejected a North Korean proposal to discuss a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War because it did not address denuclearization on the peninsula, the State Department said on Sunday.
2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/asia/korean-summit-intl/index...
> Then they signed the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification on the Korean Peninsula, which commits the two countries to denuclearization and talks to bring a formal end to conflict. It was a startling conclusion to the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in 10 years.
2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korean-lead...
> "I once again urge the community of nations to mobilize its strengths for the end-of-war declaration on the Korean Peninsula," Moon said in a speech to the annual gathering of the world body.
If you are wondering why this is "common knowledge" in the US it might be because just a few years ago there were questions about whether this state of affairs should be changed. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/27/donald-tru...
I'd imagine it is a crime to attack a state that we are in a cease fire with regardless.
That's the definition of terrorism when it's not "domestic terrorism".
I don’t know if it’s illegal per se but it’s definitely a dangerous game. If there are any misunderstandings things like this could lead to retaliation and ultimately armed conflict.
that seems to be standard US foreign policy. it's probably actually worse in reality; where the US even 'intervenes' even if it does have a peace treaty with them. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Ya, if I were the State Department, if be pissed
One crime does not justify another.
The Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.
https://irp.fas.org/world/uk/extradite.pdf
As I understand it, this was an extension of the original 1972 treaty.