Why Q really did have to be this way
This is not a defence of Q, nor a belief claim.
It’s a structural analysis of why a phenomenon like Q could only survive in the form it took — given modern attribution risk, asymmetric retaliation, and fifth-generation information warfare constraints.
The argument is constraint-driven, not narrative-driven:
attribution → persuasion → survivability → protocol → behaviour → historical trace.
Written for history, not immediacy.
🔗 https://newsletter.marting...
This is not a defence of Q, nor a belief claim.
It’s a structural analysis of why a phenomenon like Q could only survive in the form it took — given modern attribution risk, asymmetric retaliation, and fifth-generation information warfare constraints.
The argument is constraint-driven, not narrative-driven:
attribution → persuasion → survivability → protocol → behaviour → historical trace.
Written for history, not immediacy.
🔗 https://newsletter.marting...
Why Q really did have to be this way - by Martin Geddes
Attribution, persuasion, and the shape of Fifth-Generation Warfare (5GW)
https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/why-q-really-did-have-to-be-this
08:33 PM - Jan 20, 2026
Only people mentioned by martingeddes in this post can reply
