RE: Hi-Tech Warfare with China?

Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:19:43 -0400
David Lloyd-Jones (

I think Richard Moore's problem is that the only form of discussion he =
recognises as legitimate is the competitive compilation of quotations =
from other people who agree with his claims. =20

A rebuttal by fact or logic is strange to his eyes. Thus he does not =
recognize that what he thinks is a "cheap-shot commentary" below is =
actually a factual characterisation of the central problem with C4. It =
thus constitutes a complete logical refutation of the inflated claims =
made for this new agglutination of old technologies.

Moor's criticism fails similarly for the rest of my post which he would =
like to wish away. In every paragraph I give factual, logical or both =
sorts of reasons for the conclusions I present. I discuss weapons =
lightheartedly in part because as a former Company Sergeant Major (and =
at one time on of the few dozen best rifle marksmen in the world) that's =
the Army way, in part because grim humour is the only way to treat the =
subject of large scale death, but most of all because the claims of the =
weapons-sellers turned ersatz geopolitical theoreticians are so =
hilarious. Moore has been misled by my cheery style into thinking he =
can dismiss informed, accurate, and factual criticism by pretending it =
is not there.

Sent: Monday, April 07, 1997 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: Hi-Tech Warfare with China?

4/07/97, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
This is the blather of florid colonels who have spent too long
in the sun. Unlike most fatuities, it does not even have the
virtue of being faintly true. It is simply nonsense. C4 =
along, the same way C3, C2, and the various c1s always did.
Throwing a lot of stuff on a screen no more makes sense of it
than stuffing it in a cleft stick might have.

Wow - what a prompt and lengthy critique. Should I feel devastated or
flattered? Does Mr. Lloyd-Jones correctly expose the flimsy substance =
my analysis, or does he perhaps protesteth overmuch? Does he bring his
considerable insight to bear, or do we see a barrage of cheap-shot
commentary, some hardly worth responding to? Did we see the core of a
potential critique, or is emotional response to an unfavored perspective
all there is?