Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
Part 3
RE: "Now if you understood what I meant here, you'll understand why I don't see [an] reason to provide supportive evidence. The burden of proof is on the bomber proponent side - and they delivered essentially no supportive evidence whatsoever, only assertions."
That is incorrect. You have explicitly (congratulations on that, it is very rare compared to ‘implicitly’) committed the Fallacious Burden of Proof aka “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy. I suspect your limited perspective of the world around you has caused it.
The burden-of-proof for the “LRS-B” WAS once-upon-a-time placed on those who would seek to field a new bomber. That time has now passed as they succeeded in meeting that burden (obviously) in getting it to be a program of record with a competitive procurement attached. Not only must the proponents have fulfilled many “someone’s” satisfaction that the LRS-B was needed, they had to do so using a Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) requirement as a standard to measure against. So can you now visualize how the idea that ‘some guy’ with a Blogger handle of “S.O.” claiming there is a ‘burden of proof’ the new bomber must meet to satisfy HIS notions of need appears to the rest of us? I now state explicitly that it is YOU who must bear the burden-of-proof to convince DoD and the AF that a new bomber is not needed. Since the status quo is now that one IS needed and YOU are challenging (in debate ‘making the affirmative’) that the status quo needs changing.
As an aside, are you aware of how many programs have failed to garner enough support to reach the status of the LRS-B has in the procurement process over the years?
I do: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2009/01/chasing-long-range-strike-1990-2009.html
RE: “Well, actually I did. I pointed at the underfunding of infrastructure, which competes with the bomber project for resources….”
No.
You created a binary ‘either-or’ Strawman argument. One that does not exist in the real world, as infrastructure first competes with other non-defense spending. You’ve also failed to even define the boundaries of what you mean by ‘infrastructure’. This is a non-trivial point as I can find even ‘Prog’ pseudo-studies that claim private, state , and local capital can and does provide for most infrastructure outside of two of the five (six if you count data transportation) national transportation systems.
Jun 5, 2015, 12:30:19 AM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written