If you can prove me wrong I will willingly admit I was in error,
but until then, no amount of vapouring about my mental state or
wanting to be an armchair general will do you any good unless you
work through my sums and prove to me how I was wrong.
If not, you are simply engaging in Bulverism, and that will not
change no matter how vulgar or creative you may try to get in
insisting your opponents are armchair generals.
Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis
where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person
instead assumes it wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other
person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad
hominem argument.
Lewis wrote about this in an essay of the same name (in 1941) which
is available to us in the book God in the Dock. He explains the
origin of this term as follows:
You must show that a man is wrong before
you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to
assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his
attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how
he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so
common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it
"Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its
imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at
the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father who
had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together
greater than a third "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At
that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my
opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part
of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will
be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still)
try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national
dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how
Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Say all you want, but the bottom line remains beyond using a lot
of " 
" and one-liners, you have done little
to justify what you have posted here.
Until you do so, unfortunately, the onus is on you to prove it, no
matter how much you may say people are armchair generals or always
want to insist they are correct.
From Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a
large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether
this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to
any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only
chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum
yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only,
will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of
vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a
waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong,
then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be
so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish
will become relevant but only after you have yourself done the
sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds.
It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought.
If you try to find
out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the
thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first
find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break
down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and
discover the psychological causes of the error.
Until you can do that, your posts ultimately mean little
no matter how funny or irrelevant you may try to make them. Calling
people armchair generals or know-it-alls will not detract from
their case if they are in fact, correct.
And of course it calls into question the honestly of the person who
attempts to distract from the crux of the issue by using
circumstantial ad hominem arguments.
To date you still have not justified your statement of how
you realistically expect the Chinese to use EMP weapons to take out
an American Carrier Battle Group.
Will you contuine to dodge the issue or face up to it?
