Words are important. "Likely" implies to be expected. You do offer the possibility of 'worse' with the follow on "deal with it" but the meaning of your sentence was clear -- prepare for what you expect (want?) to happen and be aware that it may change for the worse.
What I wrote was prepare for the worst and then everything else becomes simple or easy.
Those are emphatically NOT the same so we are far from saying the same thing.That could happen but certainly need not and should not. In fact, any halfway decent military planner should easily avoid all those traps. Those things are all indicators of inadequate training....if you figure the simple worst thing you could run into you will try to account for everything and apply too little everywhere, over burden yourself so you can't move or paralyze yourself with indecision and not do anything at all...or all three and some more I didn't think of.Not so. 'are likely' or 'most likely' are less permissive than 'could' -- could opens up more possibilities and is simply worst casing the the possibilities whereas your likely is best casing. That may seem like semantics but it is not, it is indicative of a mindset and mindsets trigger actions in a certain way. I find it hard to believe if in a pre-flight briefing a pilot was told to prepare for the most likely events on a flight and that, alternatively, he or she was told to prepare for the worst possible alternatives enroute, at destination and on return they would go through exactly the same planning steps and arrive at the same alternativesI'll defer also because the word "could" as you use it couldn't also be written as "are likely to" or "are most likely to" ...
Your comments reinforce my point, that most people would agree -- simply because you reinforce your point that one does not need to plan for the worst case. We can differ on that.
It is important to note that I mentioned that Congress (among others) would agree with you. Their agreement in effect assures that no US military planner will be able to go absolute worse case because, in the eyes of the Congroids, it costs too much (not just in dollar terms but also in training time and training casualties and in domestic political / foreign relations messages sent among other things.
You obviously read a great deal and much of that is history, so you should be awar that Congress kept a lot of strings on FDR and the Service really until 1943-44 when we finally got serious and prepared -- and trained -- for the worst.Again, that should not be an issue. The earth is full of the bones of dead military leaders who 'assumed' some limits on threats. You have mentioned misreading the Mitsubishi Zero among others. Underestimation of an enemy is folly and the US is particularly prone to do that. That's a habit that does not need to be encouraged....because you never have to assume some limit on the threat in order to get anything done or avoid hugely overburdening yourself.You have mentioned both -- we just differ significantly on what's entailed in doing that. You can opt for minimum to hopefully get the job done or you can overdo it to make the job easy and assured. I specifically mentioned them in this context to highlight the necessity of correct training for the full spectrum of combat, not just 'adequate' training for the mission in question. As I mentioned, we're doing 'adequate' bit now. How's that working out for us...And I'll defer too because I never in all my posts on this thread mentioned properly training or equipping.Not at all. Not even close.We're saying the same thing.
Bookmarks