Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's part of why it was a failure. The US invested a huge amount of money
in defending against a bomber attack, and they continued investing that money
years after it became clear that missiles were a more pressing threat.

That to me does not make any sense. In an arms race, you pay (or invest)
in something that protects you NOW in the hope that it works while you
invest in something that will protect you in the future.

I'm not fond of the whole concept of an arms race, but sometimes we have
one forced upon us.



Well, for that matter neither do bombers, if they are equipped with INS
systems much like the missiles would be. In fact, bombers were probably
more effective in an RF blackout, seeing as how they were navigated by
human beings with maps and pilotage as well as by electronic systems.

They may not of had good maps, etc at the time. The Soviet Union was not
as well equipped as the USAF.

Geoff.

Geoffrey;

You should know that there is no such thing as a temporary governmental
project. And that's what these amounted to.

Dave