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.
I'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 $RivalState after watching millions of its own citizens die" to be rather misrepresenting the intent of such documents.
my only point is that however you interpret the article, pivoting your response towards mocking conspiracy theorists speaks more towards a personal peeve than an objective analysis of the documents. at best it's almost irrelevant. at worst it's ironic.
notahacker|8 years ago
I mean, the hypothetical considerations of the advantages of continuous offshore nuclear deterrents over land-based ICBMs are considerably more detailed and ugly in their implications, but I'd still consider a headline arguing "$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|8 years ago