He told us that he was well read in nuclear strategy, but hadn't read Schelling. Draw your own conclusions.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Norks' New Strategy?
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
From the guy who didn't know what a "rational actor" was, thought SC attacked Fort Sumter prior to the formation of the Confederacy, and thought Germany started WW1, I'll take your critique with a grain of salt.
Rational or otherwise?
So is this the part where you start making personal insults, derail the thread, then lock it?
Much/most of it was crappy, but it was still capable of destroying Western equipment, that is why we had to develop systems like the Apache and the Abrams, and their nuclear missiles were capable of reaching us. Remember also the old cliche born out by history: Never Underestimate Your Opponent
Yes, my point was that just because a nation may not seem able to take care of a simple need doesn't mean that they do not still have serious technical capability for weapons production.
You three stop or I'll turn this thread around and go right home.
Even still not remotely worried. But I have my reasons.
Just pointing out and summarizing two statements that you’ve made in this thread. Are either of them factually incorrect?
The ol' "I'm not touching you!" defense. Classic. Glad to see the rules being applied evenly around here. Here's a fact... Many people on here, over the course of decades, have singled you out for being an asshole. Draw your own conclusions.
OK, now I'm confused... does that fact that you claimed to be well read on nuclear strategy, coupled with the fact that you haven't read Schelling, mean that you're an asshole? I was not aware of that connection. Can you flesh that idea out a bit for us?
In any case, which forum rules do you feel have been unevenly applied to you in this thread?
What percentage of your posts would you say serve no purpose except to shit on people? I'm guessing it's at least 50%.
You know, I'm noticing a trend. You learned about LOAC flying (in the back of) F18s. You then assumed since I didn't have the same experience, I couldn't know anything about it. Now you've learned something of nuclear strategy from Schelling, and you assume it's someone didn't learn it the same way, they couldn't have learned it at all. In either case, you just can't help yourself but detail threads with your hollow, asshole nature.
Dude...genuinely not trying to be an asshole but this comes off as very ...
You have a perspective, Brett has his. That's OK. Him going Socratic on you shouldn't piss you off as much as it clearly does. As an observation, your tone is coming off as the guy in the ready room who KNOWS he smarter than everyone else and would you plebes just shut up and listen to your betters. I think your argument re: this thread has some flaws and sounds a bit like a guy who worked for the state department too long. But that's OK too. I also think your some of your opinions are valuable and contribute to the discourse. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are attacking you, nor does it mean that it's a poor "representation of the community". Just some folks think that pitch was a ball and you're insistent that it's a strike. It's just baseball man. Don't go all SailorBob on us.
I appreciate the unbiased feedback. Brett and I have history, and that plays into this. It's unfortunate that I've come across the way you describe. I welcome any and all opinions on the topic at hand, and had a lengthy discussion with several people about topics that arose, as usual. Brett's MO is not to debate the logic of an argument or stay on topic at all, though. His preferred tactic is to attack the person making the argument he disagrees with, and that is what I have a problem with. That is amplified by the fact that I recently had a post deleted, and it was explained to me that the forum now has a rule against exactly that - criticizing people, yet here we are with Brett derailing another thread from an otherwise good discourse with his immature instinct to attack my credentials, rather than my argument. Should I just ignore or brush off his BS and the double standard like so many others do? Probably so, but that's not me.Dude...genuinely not trying to be an asshole but this comes off as very ...
You have a perspective, Brett has his. That's OK. Him going Socratic on you shouldn't piss you off as much as it clearly does. As an observation, your tone is coming off as the guy in the ready room who KNOWS he smarter than everyone else and would you plebes just shut up and listen to your betters. I think your argument re: this thread has some flaws and sounds a bit like a guy who worked for the state department too long. But that's OK too. I also think your some of your opinions are valuable and contribute to the discourse. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are attacking you, nor does it mean that it's a poor "representation of the community". Just some folks think that pitch was a ball and you're insistent that it's a strike. It's just baseball man. Don't go all SailorBob on us.
Rational decision?