How Do "Obsolete" Weapons Further "Defensive Capacity"?

capitolhillcubans

That's the inherent contradiction the Castro regime has stumbled itself into in its statement regarding Cuban weapons shipments to North Korea.

It took the Castro regime well over 12 hours to respond to the capture of a North Korean ship -- full of Cuban weapons hidden under 10,000 tons of sugar -- by the Panamanian authorities.

In its statement, the Castro regime admits to violating U.N. sanctions with over 240 metric tons of weaponry.

Its spin (and bollocks), after getting caught with its hands in the cookie jar, is that these were "obsolete defensive weapons."

However, it then proceeds to state that they are "need[ed] to maintain our defensive capacity."

Begs the contradiction -- how do "obsolete" weapons further the Castro regime's "defensive capacity"?

Aren't they obsolete?

Despite the contradiction, this line is also being regurgitated by some Cuba "experts" and the Castro regime's advocates abroad, who had been promising that the Castro regime is not hostile and worthy of the U.S.'s embrace -- seeing their credibility even further damaged.

Meanwhile, it took the Kim regime in North Korea nearly 24 hours to respond (as it needed plenty of time to consult with its Cuban brethren).

And predictably, it had the exact same line as the Castro regime and its "experts" abroad: "This cargo is nothing but ageing weapons which are to be sent back to Cuba after overhauling them."

The fact remains that these weapons are hostile and have the ability to cause great harm (just ask the Assad regime in Syria).  

Thus, the reason why the shipment of such weapons are illegal.

(UPDATE: Panama has charged the 35 North Korean crew members of endangering public security by illegally transporting war material.)