5 ms·
i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discuss
by catshirt 9y ago
i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discussed? evaluated? none of it makes me feel better.
- notahacker 9y agoI'd say "took into account the possibility of as a factor in the usefulness of something they didn't actually make" if we're splitting words here. I mean, the hypothetical considerations of the advantages of continuous offshore nuclear deterrents over land-based ICBMs are considerably more detailed and ugly in their implications, but I'd still consider a headline arguing "$NuclearPower planned to exterminate every man woman and child living in $RivalState after watching millions of its own citizens die" to be rather misrepresenting the intent of such documents.
- catshirt 9y agomy only point is that however you interpret the article, pivoting your response towards mocking conspiracy theorists speaks more towards a personal peeve than an objective analysis of the documents. at best it's almost irrelevant. at worst it's ironic.