[catshirt]

sorry, I’ve edited the word “planned” into my post as to not seem misleading. (forgive me for paraphrasing the title of the thread incorrectly).

unsurprisingly, it doesn’t actually change my point in the slightest. maybe we can have a more interesting conversation now.

[notahacker]

I've also edited. It's the third on a list of three hypothetical examples of a situation in which undisclosed MiGs are of more potential use than disclosed MiGs.

This is a "plan" to attack its own citizens in the same sense as a document noting "contractors are better from the point of view of flexibility, workforce mobility and the ability to downsize the work force" is a plan for mass firings.

[catshirt]

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]

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.

[catshirt]

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.