Does anyone else here find this as annoying as I do? I have this barely controllable urge to shout when I see responses to someone's argument that are along the lines of, "Don't underestimate your opponent," or, "You don't understand the other side's point-of-view," without citing the counterveilling facts/assumptions to back that up. In like vein is the assertion, "What about ______ (fill in with the latest fad idea or weapon system which hasn't even been prototyped yet, not to mention gone through the entire development and acquisition process, much less operationally fielded), I hear that'll make your system obsolete." Well, maybe in 20 years you'll be right--and maybe in 20 years we'll have moved on to our own next generation that will put us back out front again.
It's not underestimation when you've analyzed the enemy and your assessment is that you can take him out, or the system isn't a threat, or that here's the countermeasure, or whatever. If you see a hole in the analysis, point it out. Until then, that's the assessment. If your assessment based on the same data is different, okay, then it's different. That doesn't mean the other guy must be underestimating the enemy, it's just that he estimates, or esteems, them differently. Intelligence analysis is often a subjective artform rather than a hard science.
Does anyone underestimate me, er, ah, I mean, disagree with me?
Displacedjim
|
