US Nuclear Weapons Return to UK After 2008 Withdrawal 6 months ago (thedefensepost.com) 4 comments b112 Reply Add to library more_corn 6 months ago I love how we did the enemy’s intelligence work for them. I suppose it’s only a deterrent if they know about it but the opsec here doesn’t bode well. lazzurs 6 months ago The only winning move is not to play. fractallyte 6 months ago No.If the enemy insists on "playing", there should be a tit-for-tat response. This is a fundamental result from game theory, and an empirical conclusion if one peruses Russia's history with its neighbors. voxadam 6 months ago They were quoting WarGames (1983).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
more_corn 6 months ago I love how we did the enemy’s intelligence work for them. I suppose it’s only a deterrent if they know about it but the opsec here doesn’t bode well.
lazzurs 6 months ago The only winning move is not to play. fractallyte 6 months ago No.If the enemy insists on "playing", there should be a tit-for-tat response. This is a fundamental result from game theory, and an empirical conclusion if one peruses Russia's history with its neighbors. voxadam 6 months ago They were quoting WarGames (1983).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
fractallyte 6 months ago No.If the enemy insists on "playing", there should be a tit-for-tat response. This is a fundamental result from game theory, and an empirical conclusion if one peruses Russia's history with its neighbors. voxadam 6 months ago They were quoting WarGames (1983).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw
I love how we did the enemy’s intelligence work for them. I suppose it’s only a deterrent if they know about it but the opsec here doesn’t bode well.
The only winning move is not to play.
No.
If the enemy insists on "playing", there should be a tit-for-tat response. This is a fundamental result from game theory, and an empirical conclusion if one peruses Russia's history with its neighbors.
They were quoting WarGames (1983).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmGXeAtWUw