Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (51142)	8/14/1999 4:13:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Respond to of 108807

Well Steve, What the stealth bomber did was to put an added dimension into the nuclear scenario that the USSR could not counter. The slow bomber arm of our defense strategy was weak because the USSR had build missile defense systems to protect all their major cities as well as having their Air Force to counter the slow bomber threat. These systems are totally based on radar to find their targets. The stealth bombers rendered their entire defense useless. The ABM's that the USSR had deployed in violation of signed treaties protected their major cities (theoretically) from our land and submarine based ICBM's. But the ABM systems are useless against slow bombers. It was always assumed that any major military confrontation between the USA and the USSR would escalate into a nuclear exchange. That would also escalate. The Russians actually thought that nuclear war was winnable. Until the stealth bomber. The stealth bomber guaranteed the final destruction of the USSR regardless of how much destruction they could heap onto the United States. For the first time even they realized a nuclear war could not be won. And they threw in the towel after decades of bankrupting their economy with the arms race.