Do we need the SR-71?

In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can cover
only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop concentrations,
mobile Scuds, etc.

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

One of the most important lessons, I think, coming from the war on
terrorism
is that poor intelligence is becoming very costly. Satellites are
predictable and are unable to loiter over an area, while drones can
cover
only relatively small areas. From Desert Shield up to now we have been
basically blind in our search for WMDs, terrorist and troop
concentrations,
mobile Scuds, etc.

I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot, here. The SR-71 is
relatively
cheap, there are enough spare parts to last virtually forever, and it
would
be enormously effective in giving us better intelligence. The planes are
in
pretty good shape; in fact, their airframes are stronger than they were
when
first built. I believe these planes should be re-activated.

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
hostile country. Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the
difference between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North Korea
actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even terrorists can
shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things from satellites. The
satellites' orbits are known. One reason we were led to believe that Iraq
had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles and people scurrying around to hide
things whenever a satellite came over the horizon.

Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant
all the difference in the world.


I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
going to change it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

x-no-archive: yes
Teacherjh wrote:


Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant
all the difference in the world.


I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
going to change it.

I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.

Really hot jello.

Tim Broche writes:

Teacherjh wrote:


Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant
all the difference in the world.


I think the decision to go to war was made long before, and intellegence wasn't
going to change it.

I think the interior of the earth is filled with jello.

Really hot jello.

The difference between these views is that there's a lot of evidence
confirming the first one, and no evidence against it. Whereas there's
quite a lot of evidence *against* the second theory, and little
evidence supporting it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
hostile country. Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the
difference between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a
couple of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North Korea
actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even terrorists
can
shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things from satellites. The
satellites' orbits are known. One reason we were led to believe that Iraq
had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles and people scurrying around to hide
things whenever a satellite came over the horizon.

Also, when it was "leaked" that the UN inspectors were going to inspect a
certain site, photo recon showed immediate and frantic activity at that
particular site (IOW: there was at least three moles in the UN inspection
teams).

"C J Campbell" writes:

But an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk are useless for searching for WMDs in a
hostile country.

Why is that?

Ascertaining whether such weapons exist can mean the difference
between going to war or not. Some SR-71 overflights of Iraq a couple
of years ago might have meant all the difference in the world. They
would also give us more information as to whether Iran or North
Korea actually have WMDs and where they are located. Besides, even
terrorists can shoot the drones down. It is too easy to hide things
from satellites. The satellites' orbits are known. One reason we
were led to believe that Iraq had WMDs was the evidence of vehicles
and people scurrying around to hide things whenever a satellite came
over the horizon.

During the period in question, we had total air superiority over Iraq;
so we could have flown Piper Cubs over the installations to take
pictures if we'd wanted to. If we didn't fly thousands of
reconnaissance missions over Iraq during the period between the two
ways, then everybody involved is an idiot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
to try what it might sound like.)
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 at 03:44:29 in message
,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Simply put, we don't need supersonic speeds to loiter over terrorist hot
spots. Their weapons are short-ranged, so an armed TR-2 or Global Hawk
or something else that has a high loiter time will do the job, as the
British say, "spiffily."

I am British but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never said
'spiffily' in my entire life. (Except after reading your message - just
to try what it might sound like.)

You need to watch more Hollywood movies to learn how to affect a
British accent! g

This affectation is brought to you by the same people who use "y'all"
in the singular when trying to imitate an accent from the US South.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

"alexy" wrote:
This affectation is brought to you by the same people
who use "y'all" in the singular when trying to imitate an
accent from the US South.

Yup, it's a pet peeve of mine. Hollywood never gets it right.

It's a "hyper-ruralism," an error caused by trying too hard to sound
country, the opposite of another pet peeve of mine, the "he and I"
hyperurbanism, as in "Jane took John and I to dinner."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM