Probably in line with that "limited strikes to shock and deter U.S. in crisis" theory that popped up in the strategic posture commission report.

Well, they do bring in mutual alerting dynamics, Russian SSBNs shaking their tail, other chatter to paint the picture that something bigger could be coming or misperceived as such. Again, echoes of real problems.

e.g. the "wait it out problem" is addressed as "what if the president only hears the hawks who want damage limiting preemption." That could be a real problem to worry about, but probably not in this scenario.

I came out of the movie less mad about it all than I thought I would be. It's a weird one. The dynamics echo reality but aren't realistic in strict ways.

Growth has stalled out and reversed slightly after the covid bump. Forever games have a permanent and growing chunk of the revenue pie, making new games more risky, and external competition for player's leisure time e.g. short form video. is increasing.

Disrupting expectations could be valuable right now just to shake up the upload consensus. The likelihood of no follow-on talks are higher without a one-year freeze... policy will just slide without deadlines.

Those of us who took international law (particularly on territorial disputes) at some point in uni only vaguely remember it as a gray, dusty case study. That it is flaring up now is wild. Peace really is indivisible.

Yes, and, in any case, what is permitted under (most interpretations of) international law is preemption of an imminent armed attack,*not* weaponization or any lesser other hostile act.

The industry-day cancellings will continue until morale improves.

A successor to Awful Squad Jr still does customs every week!

MDA is talking about a full transition from deterrence to a perfect missile defense once again. I have a hard time telling who is high on their own supply and who isn't.

The way I've always framed 4) is that the game must, in addition to being an open world, be (or show some interest in being) a society simulator.

Part of it seems to be that people still are thinking of this in conventional terms and not how quickly it could become a nuclear problem. Yes, maybe the military utility of conventional intermediate is rising with accuracy, but it's also driving the competition.

They said last year the development of FOBS is probably motivated by U.S. missile defense. This seems like a broadening of that statement.

CBO numbers from 2023 are a good starting point, but also include operations for current forces (so not just "modernization"). Also, the last update just looks at the next 10 years and is a little out of date given recent cost increase updates.