Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: I know what a straw man argument is. I have written extensively on the topic of logical fallacies.
Then you should know that you're engaging in straw man fallacies on this thread. Whether you've written about that fallacy or not is beside the point. In practice, you don't appear to know what constitutes a strawman fallacy.
You don't seem to know that you're actually engaging in it while erroneously accusing others of engaging in strawman tactics.
Trying to claim that "this is a strawman" because it's not something that you subscribe to isn't you accurately identifying what a strawman is.
The points that I brought up on this thread directly addresses the points that I was countering... I wasn't countering something similar or that sounded the same... I countered what was actually being said while remaining on the topic that they started... that doesn't constitute my advancing a strawman argument.
Mac, the Troops are Welfare Whores: And I seriously doubt if there would be a conventional military response to an invasion. We'll have to disagree about that, because neither of us know.
Again, I've been in the military for over 1/5th of a century, cumulatively. I've practiced this craft, to include training to maintain my professional specialties as part of a larger training effort. I've done this long enough to know for a fact that we won't always immediately resort to a nuclear strike.
The last time I've trained in a scenario that involved nuclear weapons was back in the 1990s. The last battle problem that I did, involving nuclear weapons use training scenario, was almost 2 decades ago.
Every time we did these training scenarios, these battle problems began with a conventional scenario... and it evolved into "mass conflagration." This was also known as the losing side, the Soviets or rogue third world dictator, using tactical nuclear weapons.
You see, that's the key... by the losing side.
If we successfully repel an invasion using conventional forces, there'd be no need to resort to nuclear war... unless the losing side resorts to it in order to regain momentum in an attempt to complete their invasion.
As part of my profession, I have to know the doctrines that impact what the military does. Those doctrines, specifically talking about nuclear weapons, don't identify those weapons as being "first resort" weapons.
Don't tell me what I do know, or don't know, about a profession that I've practiced most my adult and professional life. Thank me for giving you a clue about how the real military would do things against your lack of knowledge about what you're talking about here.
Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know about this topic. Have the honor and integrity to know that I know more about this topic than you... I have experience against your lack of it. You should be thanking me for educating you in the face of your not knowing what you're talking about.
It's painfully obvious that you need to do a lot of research in the areas that we debated. Your argument in this topic isn't able to withstand a fact check.
What I'm telling you are facts based on firsthand experience. I'm also giving you a perspective that's based on my familiarity with our doctrine and law involving the use of nuclear weapons.
If what you said were true, we would've turned Afghanistan into a glowing mushroom garden. We didn't. We used a conventional and special forces response instead. We also used economic, political, and other types of responses.
Mac, The Troops are Welfare Whores: Also, you should try to be more concise. This isn't a very good medium for such long comments.
The fact that I post in the length that I post contributes to my being able to do this:
"Although, I must thank you for your calm and articulate comments. We aren't used to that around here." -- Mac, Troops are Welfare Whores
I could do one of two things, I could lacerate you guys via a flame war, which doesn't take a long post to engage in... or I could advance a factual, reasoned, and logical argument. The latter requires a lengthy response at times.
You should be thankful for my long posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment