Usually, I think "have to" indicates obligation, which is pretty similar to "must". But today I found this sentence and its usage of "have to" confused me: (it is from NYTimes.com)
Long-term forecasts seem to me rather like time capsules, designed more to provide retrospective amusement for those who eventually have to read them, than to be taken seriously as they are first uttered.
It would be uncomfortable to interpret have to as must since we are not "compelled to read them".
Can anybody explain this for me?