On May 1, 8:18 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:25:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus

wrote:
It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
Ken

It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
it isn't major modification stuff.

Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
other things).

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.

There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
suggestion America lacks fortitude.

Bill Kambic
Gracefully Aging RAFS Member

Regards
Ken
PS:What's RAFS?