3 ms·
I wonder although wasteful, isn't this better than accelerated failures taking the defense radar offline at random times in the future? Reminds me of a friend
by m463 2y ago
I wonder although wasteful, isn't this better than accelerated failures taking the defense radar offline at random times in the future?
Reminds me of a friend of mine who somehow blew a shift in his car and did something bad to his engine. Instead of pulling over and stopping, he just drove it home and ended up destroying the engine.
So he got a whole new engine instead of having insurance pay to dismantle the engine and replace a few valves. It might even have been a similar price, but a much more robust solution.
- nine_k 2y agoBut the action that has actually been taken just guaranteed the prompt destruction of the radar equipment, and a prolonged outage to replace it. Unless an attack was underway that the radar was tracking, the right course of action was to power it off immediately, and start cleaning it. After the cleaning, it would go online promptly, and then parts of it could be assessed for damage, taken offline when the replacement is ready, and replaced, likely without even stopping the operation. This kind of paralysis and fear of making decisions, especially when time is of essence, would be exactly what I'd like to instill in my enemies.
- sakjur 2y agoIt would explain a surprising amount of events at least here in Sweden if BCG and McKinsey were part of a conspiracy to weaken the crisis preparedness of states worldwide.
- OptionOfT 2y agoIf your friend did a money shift the damage happened at the shift moment and driving home didn't change the outcome.
- jpc0 2y agoI reread the comment a few times and I think he agrees with you. His friend got the better outcome by not stopping immediately is what he was implying.