I don’t quite understand your argument. Based off your explanation wouldn’t ICBM be better than Sword? It’s simply specifying what type of bomb/missile, opposed to just “Sword” which gives no specifications at all, other than that it’s just a sword. ICBM/Nuclear Bomb at least attempt to give additional details on what exact weapon it is they’re named after.
Also the rules can’t be “very clear” in regards to no vehicles, when they aren’t even mentioned once. The entire argument on vehicles is based off interpretation of the intended meaning, not letter of the law. The Rules page lists exactly TWO rules to follow regarding A.W. names. 1: It has to be a “Weapon”, and 2: It has to have been made before 1975.
ICBM: a specfic type of missile, with actual designations e.g Titan.
Sword:generic term for all types of swords.
Literally vehicles are not weapons, no matter how much you argue it a toyota was not designed or built to kill people, it was designed and made to take you places, same with an abrams, it doesn’t kill people by itself, it kills people WITH THE WEAPONS on it.
we are putting young unemployed graduates with heads full of dreams into passenger planes and flying them directly into the Forbidden City to fuck up UPP
