Makes sense, then, so I'll stand the semantic police down on this one...
... but I will have my logic cops probe a little further, out of curiosity's sake.
Doesn't your complete reliance on destruction limit your options? If you can defeat an enemy through deterrence, then that is legitimate is it not? Is there any meaning behind your insistence on 'destroy' that you would choose it above the more holistic, all-encompassing term of defeat?
Bookmarks