>>67941
From the looks of it, they were trying to launch it inbetween the two land masses and the trajectory was off in typical Nork fashion.
If you fire a bullet at someone, no. That's a clear NAP violation because the intent was to cause harm. If you fire a bullet and it ricochets and nearly hits someone, then you deserve to eat dirt for being reckless and that NAP violation when they beat the shit out of you will likely be ignored, but it's not an NAP violation.
>>67910
The intent of a missile launch is to either test the range of your product to determine if you can kill people, or to actually kill people. In any case, the act of launching a missile for anything other than the fun of watching missiles explode is a much larger and bigger NAP violation than the piddly act of invasion of airspace. The only reason that the missile launch violation gets ignored is because we're dealing with two government agents that never followed the NAP (in its truest sense) to begin with.