It reduces the probability that a drive by scanner is going to detect a vulnerable service. Camouflage isn't a guarantee that you aren't going to be sighted on a battlefield, but it's still a good idea to reduce the probability of becoming a target in whatever ways you can.
ActionHank
joined 2 years ago
I was able to get in two games of Cartographers, one scenario from Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, and a round of Lords of WaterDeep. What a good week!
Cartographers is one of my new favorites for my friend group. We've been playing it slowly with colored pencils, just taking our time making the maps look extra pretty. We plan on printing some larger maps for the game, and then bringing our own art supplies. It's a nice relaxing game to just hang out with your friends to.
Big enough for what though? Big enough to take advantage of the amount of destruction these weapons create? They could have chosen a single isolated, near coast warship. Or even just dropped it near coast on no target at all. The important thing would have been the show of force, in order to deter further attack. Knowing the US had that capability might have been enough to end the war. But we didn't try to communicate that we had these weapons, instead we used them.
I don't get the "needed to" argument. They could have chosen military targets, but went straight for cities.
7 years, 1st lemmy post. Hi everybody!
I like the idea of referring to it only as "The social media site formerly known as Twitter" from here on out.