Why is Stealth So Important?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:59:37 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You might want to review the relationship between the military and the
government established by the US Constitution.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

???? We? Who is we? And, why would the French need approval from
anyone other than the French people? And, if they "decolonized" in
1946, what was going on at Dien Bien Phu in 1954?

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

What's the relevance of the link? It certainly doesn't offer any
support for US military officers intending to lose.

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict.

You might refer to Marshall Michel's excellent work, "Eleven Days of
Christmas" for some insight into the relationship between SAC and the
rest of the US military. Pay close attention to the command
relationships. SAC was not under the operational control of MACV or
7th Air Force.

Then, you might also want to check the size of the target area, the
availability of offset or direct aim points for a weapons delivery,
and the need to avoid collateral damage in a target area. (I might
even offer you a first-person account by a POW who was moved to a cell
that was immediately across the street from the Hanoi Power Plant.)
Some times there are only so many ways you can approach a target. Why
come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

But, if we count casualties, then the 58,000 names on the Wall are
minor compared to the estimates of 2 to 3 million that the NVN and VC
lost in the war.

Whether we won or lost, suffered immense casualties or none at all,
the sniveling weak sisters who burned their draft cards would still
have been driven only by the desire to preserve their own worthless
hides.

And, you might also want to check out the number of Reserve and Guard
units that served in combat in SEA and how many casualties they
incurred.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:wFFMb.20$ce2.7@okepread03...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose
the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You'll have to do better than that. How did they INTEND to lose it?


It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.


http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three
B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever
drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and
those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the
great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer
casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn
their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

What claptrap. You are about one notch above that ZZBunker character in
terms of having a grasp of reality. The fact that the early tactics of the
B-52 raids during LBII were flawed had nothing to do with the way the war
progressed. And assigning the qualities of draft resister to *all*, or even
*most*, of the US citizens in the late sixties/early seventies is pure
unadulterated BS. While casualties are never good, the fact is that the
casualty count in Vietnam was much less than that of either WWI or WWII, and
the casualty *rate* was less than that experienced in Korea (given that the
duration of active combat operations in Korea was much less than that
experienced in Vietnam). You need to go back to supporting the policies of
Saddam and Hitler--as ridiculous as those attempts were, you were probably
making more headway with them than with this nonsense.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote in message
It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Merely a typo: recolonize.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Why come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

Plinking. Total waste of time. Didn't achieve anything, and akin to Germans
bombing London. Big deal.

From: (Denyav)
Date: 1/11/04 10:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an

Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical.

Wrong

58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
I think not.
Walt BK

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
I think not.
Walt BK

Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"WaltBJ" wrote
58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
I think not.
Walt BK

Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?

Brooks

You succeed without even trying. You spend all your time telling people
they're wrong, but never offer one gram of anything substantial. You are
hot air. Why not find a brown woman green boy?

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
newsmSMb.86$ce2.46@okepread03...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"WaltBJ" wrote
58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
I think not.
Walt BK

Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?

Brooks

You succeed without even trying. You spend all your time telling people
they're wrong, but never offer one gram of anything substantial. You are
hot air. Why not find a brown woman green boy?

Obviously you need to take your meds and get back to us when you are
coherent--"brown woman/green boy"? Yep, you are in good company with Messeur
ZZBunker...

Brooks

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:F9HMb.28$ce2.0@okepread03...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote in message
It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Merely a typo: recolonize.

Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some kind
of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and that
really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...

Brooks