User Controls
Using Defence as an Offence, I Get It Now
-
2021-12-16 at 3 AM UTC.
-
2021-12-16 at 3:01 AM UTCthe other way around is typically more effective
-
2021-12-16 at 3:10 AM UTC
-
2021-12-16 at 3:49 AM UTCya, demorats are scum
-
2021-12-16 at 4:04 AM UTC
-
2021-12-16 at 5:48 AM UTC
-
2021-12-16 at 5:56 AM UTC
-
2021-12-16 at 5:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai nah fuck that let your enemies break themselves on your hardened carapace. immovable object beats unstoppable force every time.
if it worked this way lethal deterrents wouldn't need to exist at every social and political level
assuming they're peers, in almost every sphere an attacker has the advantage over a defender -
2021-12-16 at 6:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra if it worked this way lethal deterrents wouldn't need to exist at every social and political level
assuming they're peers, in almost every sphere an attacker has the advantage over a defender
It's just harder to make an immovable object; harder to make impenetrable armor - especially for practical man-portable purposes. But in the terms of platonic ideals, the best defense beats the best offense. Definitionally. It is more effective. Transferring that wisdom to practical reality is hard, but even here in our squishy messy world a nuclear bunker still beats a nuke. In the eternal spiritual arms race, defense wins. -
2021-12-16 at 6:42 AM UTCIt depends on the type of conflict one finds themselves in.
Some methods employed at one level of awareness may be taken as defensive, whereas taken at a different strategic level may be offensive.
Think of goading an opponent into an attack and drawing them in. What may appear as a defensive posture can be a setup for a counterstrike. Made on your terms, in places you choose, and when you choose them.
Know ur enema and all that jazz.
I rather frame moves made as trying to control outcomes in a fluid sense. Than as as "Hulk smash initiative mine"
The best weapon and armor consists of knowledge, of your capabilities and your opponents. Clear sight cuts down men caught in the fog. -
2021-12-16 at 6:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai It's just harder to make an immovable object; harder to make impenetrable armor - especially for practical man-portable purposes. But in the terms of platonic ideals, the best defense beats the best offense. Definitionally. It is more effective. Transferring that wisdom to practical reality is hard, but even here in our squishy messy world a nuclear bunker still beats a nuke. In the eternal spiritual arms race, defense wins.
the cost to build deep-penetrating missiles vs the cost to dig out and build reinforced concrete structures is massively weighted in the missile's favour.
it's not just harder to make 'impenetrable' armor, it's impossible because barring some kind of entirely new, asymmetrical paradigm, anything you can make armor from you can make a weapon from, and any weapon benefits from the inherent advantages an attacker has over a defender.'
deterrence to avoid conflict is the most cost-effective because you don't actually need to expend munitions and armor and don't have to keep rebuilding them.
assume you're attacked on the street and you have the choice of a gun or a bulletproof vest - a vest stops the bullet if your attacker shoots you in it, but it does nothing to stop them from getting close enough to shoot you somewhere else -
2021-12-16 at 2:36 PM UTCFloat like butterfly, sting like bee.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-12-16 at 3:46 PM UTC
-
2021-12-16 at 3:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
the cost to build deep-penetrating missiles vs the cost to dig out and build reinforced concrete structures is massively weighted in the missile's favour.
it's not just harder to make 'impenetrable' armor, it's impossible because barring some kind of entirely new, asymmetrical paradigm, anything you can make armor from you can make a weapon from, and any weapon benefits from the inherent advantages an attacker has over a defender.'
deterrence to avoid conflict is the most cost-effective because you don't actually need to expend munitions and armor and don't have to keep rebuilding them.
assume you're attacked on the street and you have the choice of a gun or a bulletproof vest - a vest stops the bullet if your attacker shoots you in it, but it does nothing to stop them from getting close enough to shoot you somewhere else
This post is rock n roll
Whenever I come on NIS I see posts I wish I saw on social media -
2021-12-16 at 6:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
the cost to build deep-penetrating missiles vs the cost to dig out and build reinforced concrete structures is massively weighted in the missile's favour.
it's not just harder to make 'impenetrable' armor, it's impossible because barring some kind of entirely new, asymmetrical paradigm, anything you can make armor from you can make a weapon from, and any weapon benefits from the inherent advantages an attacker has over a defender.'
deterrence to avoid conflict is the most cost-effective because you don't actually need to expend munitions and armor and don't have to keep rebuilding them.
assume you're attacked on the street and you have the choice of a gun or a bulletproof vest - a vest stops the bullet if your attacker shoots you in it, but it does nothing to stop them from getting close enough to shoot you somewhere else
spoken like a human man with no carapace upon which enemies can break themselvs
-
2021-12-16 at 6:14 PM UTCcockroaches will outlive us all smh
-
2021-12-17 at 7:01 AM UTC
