Okay, I see. So there's about a page in that essay about Britain being a nuclear power and what happens in a civil war scenario.
It seems your contention is that anybody who mentions nuclear weapons without the disclaimer that they don't believe in them is therefore an NPC and unworthy of being paid attention to.
But isn't that literally every military strategist on the planet? Sure you could argue that there are secret strategists writing secret documents for their government - but out of anything you can actually read, BASICALLY EVERYBODY gives some consideration to the nuclear question.
I think if you want to understand the dynamics of war, and answer questions like "what can the British people do right now?", rejecting ALMOST ALL military writing is just not an effective strategy.
It seems your contention is that anybody who mentions nuclear weapons without the disclaimer that they don't believe in them is therefore an NPC and unworthy of being paid attention to.
But isn't that literally every military strategist on the planet? Sure you could argue that there are secret strategists writing secret documents for their government - but out of anything you can actually read, BASICALLY EVERYBODY gives some consideration to the nuclear question.
I think if you want to understand the dynamics of war, and answer questions like "what can the British people do right now?", rejecting ALMOST ALL military writing is just not an effective strategy.
1
