|
|
|
|
|
|
by vonmoltke
3628 days ago
|
|
|
> i think whether or not a plane can actually get to the target is pretty fair use of 'equipped to deliver'. So "the target" is always and forever Russia, and mainland Russia at that? No, the generic statement "equipped to deliver" cannot be interpreted with respect to a particular use case among many. It means "capable of loading the weapon and striking a target". > new york times is not writing for a military audience, 'deliver' in lay person speak means getting it there, as in parcel delivery. Any aircraft capable of carrying air-to-ground ordinance can "get it there", for some set of "it"s. > i.e. if your truck can only hold 1 gallon of fuel it's not equipped to deliver the package to a destination 1000 miles away. By your definition no truck is "equipped to deliver the package to a destination 1000 miles away", yet trucks do this every day. You are adding a bunch of hidden assumptions about what "equipped" means, many of which aren't valid. |
|
|