4 ms·

Since you're struggling, let me point them out. 1. aerial surveillance goes back a lot further than you realised. Got it? 2. The vietnamese had little of the

Since you're struggling, let me point them out. 1. aerial surveillance goes back a lot further than you realised. Got it? 2. The vietnamese had little of the great advantages you list, yet the US which had them in spades, lost. ISIS is similarly disadvantaged but is also clinging on like the cancer they are. So your claim there was "overwhelming advantage for the society which possesses [them]" is bunk. Got it? > demonstrates ably why a jet airplane is an important improvement over, say, a train; something a child would find obvious which I partly acknowledged, excepting the bits about surveillance. Got it? The bit about you responding ad hom is dickishly annoying. Got it?

scottlocklin 7y ago
The North Vietnamese lost actually; and had they not been under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and recipient of billions in Soviet aid, they would have lost a lot quicker to US technological superiority. There were no US troops in South Vietnam when the North entered Saigon. I dunno what you hope to achieve here; do you think any significant population of people think jets are no big deal?
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  The US did not achieve their goals is the bottom line. Perhaps another example, the korean war. In both cases the US had the overwhelming advantage including nukes. Your point is wrong, or right, or needs tightening up so that it can be decided as wrong or right. There is validity in your point but it's not the whole thing, or there would have been unambiguous victory for the US in the cases I gave. The problem here is not jets/technology but that you won't acknowledge when you're on shaky ground; the problem is now your judgement. You know what, that's a metaphor for so many of the ills and shortcomings of humanity. You will lose nothing and gain much by just putting your hands up to it and rethinking, but you won't (we're all guilty of that to various degrees, me also). Your position may be wrong or right or something in between, but it needs refining and thinking through first. Bugs in software are often seen as failings, and they are, but they can be turned into an asset. People's questioning your views here may indicate where you need to rethink (not necessarily change your mind, perhaps just refine and stabilise your position, or perhaps abandon it). Treat their questions and counterclaims as an asset too.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    You're refusing to see my heuristic as what it is; a scoring function. As I said above: put it in a wargame simulator like civilization. You only get so many societal resources to invest in your new technology development; only so many smart people to go around. Which would you rather have? A-bombs or iphones? FWIIW, the US achieved all its goals in the Korean war, and persisted them to the present day, despite the Norks being supported by the Soviets as the North Vietnamese were. Had congress not decided to pull the plug on the South Vietnamese in 1975, there'd probably be two Vietnams as well.

scottlocklin 7y ago

The North Vietnamese lost actually; and had they not been under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and recipient of billions in Soviet aid, they would have lost a lot quicker to US technological superiority. There were no US troops in South Vietnam when the North entered Saigon. I dunno what you hope to achieve here; do you think any significant population of people think jets are no big deal?

tempguy9999 7y ago
The US did not achieve their goals is the bottom line. Perhaps another example, the korean war. In both cases the US had the overwhelming advantage including nukes. Your point is wrong, or right, or needs tightening up so that it can be decided as wrong or right. There is validity in your point but it's not the whole thing, or there would have been unambiguous victory for the US in the cases I gave. The problem here is not jets/technology but that you won't acknowledge when you're on shaky ground; the problem is now your judgement. You know what, that's a metaphor for so many of the ills and shortcomings of humanity. You will lose nothing and gain much by just putting your hands up to it and rethinking, but you won't (we're all guilty of that to various degrees, me also). Your position may be wrong or right or something in between, but it needs refining and thinking through first. Bugs in software are often seen as failings, and they are, but they can be turned into an asset. People's questioning your views here may indicate where you need to rethink (not necessarily change your mind, perhaps just refine and stabilise your position, or perhaps abandon it). Treat their questions and counterclaims as an asset too.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  You're refusing to see my heuristic as what it is; a scoring function. As I said above: put it in a wargame simulator like civilization. You only get so many societal resources to invest in your new technology development; only so many smart people to go around. Which would you rather have? A-bombs or iphones? FWIIW, the US achieved all its goals in the Korean war, and persisted them to the present day, despite the Norks being supported by the Soviets as the North Vietnamese were. Had congress not decided to pull the plug on the South Vietnamese in 1975, there'd probably be two Vietnams as well.