Don't read this. You won't like it. (Part 2)

Remember this?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=197133&postcount=1

Well, here’s part two in what I am now going to post as a continuing series. So, here goes:

Don’t read this.

You won’t like it.

If you do read this, know that you drove me to do this 😀

There are two schools of thought in the world right now. No, these are not the ONLY 2 schools of thought. These two schools of thought pertain to a specific issue, so don’t be expecting any help with the meaning of life or anything like that. Monty Python sorted that out already anyway. The issue in question, by the way, will not be named as to not offend the party that got militarily embarrassed. Who will also not be named.

-School of thought one: Country A beat the ever-living crap out of Country B and consequently won the air war.

-School of thought two: Country B beat the ever-living crap out of Country A but managed to be composed, militarily, of complete and total idiots and lost the air war anyway.

Now, the question is, which school of thought is graduating, per se, intelligent individuals? Logic would make us turn towards S1 (that’s “school of thought one” for the abbvreviation impaired. Make sure your brains don’t blow up trying to comprehend S2 when it appears in a minute). After all, Country B can’t be composed of total failures so blatantly incompetent that they could use their “superior” (we’ll get to that, trust me) hardware to blast Country A into submission yet still manage to end up as losers, right? At this time it needs to be noted that yes, Country B is a bunch of losers, regardless of S1 or S2 (did your brain just blow up?). Not losers personally, of course, but militarily.

Anyway.

If logic turns us towards S1, what could turn us towards S2? A number of factors. Internet idiots who propagate obvious propaganda. Misinformed or biased media sources and outlets (yes, biased media sources do exist). Nationalistic idiots from Country B, suffering from something akin to penile deficiency during the glorious and monumental beatdown handed upon them by Country A, trying to make it look like they were operating with something regarding competence on some subliminal level. Not to mention a total and complete lack of evidence to substantiate the completely hilarious and outlandish claims made by Country B. But around here, evidence is secondary to nationalistic opinion, we’ve proven that in Part 1 of this series already. Let’s get back to the “complete and total idiots” facet of the argument. Country B sees a target on a screen. They fire a missile at said target. Two dots on the screen, on for the missile and one for the target, intersect. That must be a kill! Get real. Something died, sure, but was it:

A. A combat aircraft
B. An air-launched decoy like the ADM-141
C. A towed decoy like the thing that comes out of them retarded looking things on the back end of the B-1B
D. A cruise missile
E. A UAV
F. A chaff cloud
G. A bunch of oxygen molecules

How do you determine what just died? That’s easy. You go out and look. You find parts. You put said parts on TV to demonstrate your apparent superiority over a sixty-second period of that given day.

Or, going back to the penile deficiency facet of the argument, you can just assume everything hit a combat aircraft, and just claim that you’re racking up great kill rates. After all, it’s easier that way. You can even claim you’re blowing up really big airplanes too! They’ve gotta be easier to hit right? What are the benefits of just making things up? You don’t have to get your boots dirty looking for blowed up airplane parts that may or may not be there. You can satisfy your bosses by feeding them good numbers so they leave you in charge for another week (they probably wouldn’t have noticed anyway; they were engaged in fierce theological and ethnical debates at the time and probably wouldn’t have cared if you hit anything, as long as every once in a while one of your blowed up SAMs landed in the middle of a debated area). And you can make it look like you actually do have some ability to defend yourself in the air. Logically, making things up seems ot be the best bet, given the massively underwhelming number of blowed up airplane parts that were shown on TV and whatnot.

So, we’re left with one of two realistic options. Either S1 is correct, and S2 is a bunch of fools, or S2 is correct, but it’s because S2 is a bunch of fools. That makes sense, but you have to read it sideways.

So, once again, who cares. Who cares if S1 is right. Who cares if S2 is right. There is one constant factor behind both schools of thought: Country C can make SAM systems that are first-rate. But their aircraft are cannon fodder for Country A. Constantly. Country A gets itself into all kinds of wars. Country A blows up all kinds of airplanes. Funny little factoid of the day: most, if not all of them, were built by Country C! Now what does that tell you? You can draw one of two logical conclusions. Either the products from Country C that Country A has faced in combat are pretty much ineffective when compared to what Country A brings to the fight, or the export users of Country C’s hardware are incompetent when compared to Country A. One of them has to be correct. And if you believe the latter, then by default you must therefore acknowledge the logic behind school of thought one.

Remember, I told you not to read this. So if you feel irritated or offended, guess what, you brought it upon yourself. Maybe you need to relearn reading comprehension 😀