The recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has been ongoing for some time, and it has become increasingly abstract, to the point where it has completely overflowed with a strong Southeast Asian regional cultural flair. Recently, what has gained the most attention is not the tanks or rockets, but rather the Thai side using loudspeakers at the border to play ghostly sounds at night. At first glance, it seems very surreal, but upon reflection, it is quite realistic. Southeast Asia is inherently a place where religion, folklore, and ghost narratives are deeply ingrained in people's hearts. If your goal is not annihilation but rather to clear the combat zone and drive away residents, then this psychological deterrence is actually the lowest cost and least risky method. Scaring people away is certainly better than killing them, and within the moral framework of modern warfare, this is a gray but "reasonable" choice. You could say this is psychological warfare, or you could say it's to avoid civilian casualties; in any case, no deaths and no bloodshed can create sustained pressure. Cambodia bringing this matter to the United Nations is not surprising, to be honest, but it does carry a hint of dark humor. The UN often struggles to mediate even real armed border conflicts, let alone decide whether "playing ghostly sounds at midnight counts as a violation." But whether or not they succeed in this complaint is not important; what matters is to first occupy the narrative, to label the other side with "harassing civilians" and "psychological deterrence," accumulating chips for future negotiations. Thailand is also quite aware that the ghostly sounds are merely a tactic; the real moral leverage lies in the crackdown on telecom fraud. As long as the targets remain focused on telecom fraud, casinos, and the gray and black industries that are universally detested, they will naturally occupy a high ground in the international public opinion arena. Anti-telecom fraud is politically correct in itself. However, there is only one prerequisite: the strikes must be precise enough. If there are civilian casualties or images of controlled laborers, the moral advantage will instantly backfire, and the "just action" will be packaged as military expansion under the guise of a pretext. Thus, this conflict has never really resembled traditional warfare; it is more like an information war and a moral war cloaked in military garb. The border friction is real, and the escalation of firepower is also real, but what both sides are truly competing over is not who has the stronger firepower, but who can tell a better story and who can occupy the position of "justice" in the international system and public opinion arena. The ghostly sounds are merely a highly regional and extremely low-cost tactical symbol. In this era, artillery can only solve half the problem; the other half is often left to the loudspeakers of public opinion, cameras, reports, and the United Nations conference rooms.