More Words, Deeper Hole

Sigh. No, I am not pro-stealth particularly. I am against the belligerence of the anti-stealth side. As for:

You seem like an excellent example yourself, apparently equally committed to the pro-stealth position, despite someone contradicting your statement that "everyone agrees that directive radiating is possible".

Do tell. Who is this person, and what are their qualifications for making this statement? I'm _fascinated_.

Sensors *will* be harder to detect, and even if they aren't, the act of trying to take them out will be unstealthy. And sensors can be replaced.

I don't think anyone has argued that they will be harder to detect. Insisting by fiat that they are undetectable, is, the however, the position a lot of anti-stealth people seem to take. Do you agree that this is an indefensible position?

Don't waffle and reiterate that they will be harder to detect; that's what makes the people who hold the anti-stealth position seem contemptible, given their repeated assertions that pro-stealth people 'just don't know basic physics'.

I would also note, that 'the act of taking out sensors' is unstealthy seems to fly in the face of a long tradition of doing just that to remain stealthy. It even gets movie treatment, e.g. tossing a bug in a circuit breaker to power down a critical security camera. Typically, fat guard #1 gets off his duff and investigates, then disgustedly makes some humorous observation(humorous to the fourth wall, that is) to guard #2 over the walkie-talkie, and flips the breaker back on, restoring power to the critical cam. Meanwhile, the ops team has run through the critical zone . . . In fact, that's why the anti-stealth people, poor losers, insisted why their detectors were by fiat unfindable.

Do you really not see this? Or is it that you've committed to a position that you can't comfortably back away from . . . presumably after telling pro-stealth types that "they don't know basic physics"?

What was the line from Brazil? 'Whose going to stop you from coming in? Well, do you have form dd-stroke-274?' 'Not . . . as such.'