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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (48394)	10/1/2002 9:30:17 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Interestingly enough, the debate centered exclusively on the Concorde, whereas the U.S. had a fleet of supersonic bombers and fighters that produced the same emissions at the same altitude. What "fleet of supersonic bombers" would that be, LindyBill? There were fighters that could go supersonic on afterburner. To this day, I don't think there's a combat aircraft of any type that can cruise at supersonic speed. Maybe the B1, it was designed to but my understanding is that it could never really match its design specs. And it certainly wasn't operational in the early 70s'. And do you perchance think that the Concorde might have miraculously rescued Pan Am from its continual downward spiral? Libertarians are supposed to be economically aware, you know. Or do you think that France and Britain might have given away the Concorde to non-national airlines as they did to their own carriers?