Threat verbiage allows for non-threats to still be called threats, that’s the point of what I was highlighting. Flying pigs are not a threat, they don’t exist – dragons are not a threat, they don’t exist either. You can still throw them on a Risk Registry/Threat listing, and call them a threat, because there’s no definitive, objective, quantifiable process for determining what a threat is.
So yes, you can say Cuba is a threat. Even though for all practical purposes it isn’t a “real” threat or a credible threat, you can still put it on a list and declare it ‘technically’ a threat to US national security. Just like you could put flying pigs on that list, or dragons, even though neither of those things exist, nor would any sane person think theres a real risk of america falling due to flying pig attacks – if they’re on a threat list, they’re a threat.
Yes, but Realistically no, Cuba never did anything that harmed USA in any meaningful way.
USA however has massively harmed Cuba for 70 years now.
Threat verbiage allows for non-threats to still be called threats, that’s the point of what I was highlighting. Flying pigs are not a threat, they don’t exist – dragons are not a threat, they don’t exist either. You can still throw them on a Risk Registry/Threat listing, and call them a threat, because there’s no definitive, objective, quantifiable process for determining what a threat is.
So yes, you can say Cuba is a threat. Even though for all practical purposes it isn’t a “real” threat or a credible threat, you can still put it on a list and declare it ‘technically’ a threat to US national security. Just like you could put flying pigs on that list, or dragons, even though neither of those things exist, nor would any sane person think theres a real risk of america falling due to flying pig attacks – if they’re on a threat list, they’re a threat.
I didn’t contradict you, technically yes, realistically no.
Which is also what you write in your response.
I edited my post to make that part more clear.