***@socal.rr.com (Josh) wrote in message
Forgive me, but its painfully obvious that you've not
worked for defense contractors. While they're often
not the evil things that are portrayed in movies by a
long shot, they're also far from able - at least the
set we have now - what you are suggesting here.
1992: F-22 enters service with USAF.
Simply not possible. The ATF program which the F-22 came
from had only settled on the F-22 (vs the F-23) in spring
of 1991. IIRC, it was April. The proposals that both
contractors had put forward required a lot more work on
the design to get it to what they promised: the EMD period.
The manufacturing and avionics were *NOT*EVEN*CLOSE*TO*DONE*.
AMAOF, the F-22 avionics are *STILL* having problems.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
Dude. *WHY* would both sides keeping churning out bazillions of
nukes when even under Reagan they had been working to reduce the
total. To level one or another state, even assuming a First Strike
(tm), both sides had plenty.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
*THAT* is madness. Look, I'm a nuke fan, ok? I even grew up in
Los Alamos, NM.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The first of these will require a massive, fundamental change to
power generation, physics, and all the host of engineering that
goes along with it. 20 years from *NOW* with consistant, deep
pocket funding that the US has historically never been able to do.
Well, strike that, the Navy has, but that's a different story.
Everybody likes a sexy ship.
Now, the latter, I had the glib answer that we already have them;
they're called MIRVs, but I realized that was unfair and this
post is harsh enough as it is. The USAF is still struggling with
the whole issue of UCAVs. They're not about to just to making
them stragetic bombers, especially if there is a chance that they
won't be recallable.
Besides, the current set of contractors would like to sit there
and slurp and suck off the federal teet for as long as possible.
Think I'm being unfair? I worked for DOD contractors for 5 years
before moving away from that. What I saw sickened me. Saying
that more oversight would fix it makes me laugh. The contractor
that pulled in to audit the previous contractor turned itself in
to a cancer and was metastatising all over the sodding place.
The govies, as in the civilian government employees (G-etc's),
were such incompetant goofuses (goofi?) that I wouldn't want to
trust them to hold a hat for 5 minutes and not lose it.
Now, as for the 9-11 attacks happening and getting a similar result?
Dude, you might have just found a way of coming up with Pournelle's
CoDo...between the US and Chinese after the Soviet Union melts down.
*breaths in and out*
Look. You are new. I shouldn't flame ya, but its a pet peeve.
I'm very promilitary and pro military tech. Just, don't fall into
the trap of thinking that money will solve all the problems. The
procurement cycle is badly broken. It has been breaking down since
the 60s. McNamara is a strong contributor (IMNSHO), but the
contractors have been certainly helping things along. Anyways...
You do have a good WI here: what-if a 9-11 level of attack happened
to the US during the Cold War? *THAT* with a lot of thought and
research would make an awesome TL to read...or potentially a very
Try again and harder.
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: ***@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: ***@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.