B-2 question

[Harley W Daugherty]

How many B-2's are currently inservice and how many more are in the
production pipe, if any?

Harley

[BUFDRVR]

Harley W Daugherty wrote:

>How many B-2's are currently in service

21

>how many more are in the
>production pipe, if any?
>

ZERO.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> >There was an attempt to fund more bombers as B-2C's and
> >they would be non-nuclear, and take advantage of what's been
> >learned since the first design (which is a lot).
>
> Except that eliminating the nuclear OFP and hardening would save little in
> comparison to the $400+ million manufacturing cost. The B-2C would still be a
> very expensive aircraft to build and operate.

More like 700 million :-(

I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.

I was always in Ops squadrons when I was in the Air Force, and have
never seen the kind of money that is in the B-2 budget for Palmdale,
Tinker, and Whiteman. Working alongside Northrop has shown me
how to make millions in minutes, for basically telling Generals and
Colonels what they want to hear. Regardless if Northrop ever delivers.

I had a guy who's been with Northrop for 20 years tell me that they are
not updating the B-2 modification database, and they are delivering the
wrong parts to the field. His boss in LA told him not to worry about it,
because the Air Force has decided not to fund the database, and when
they finally realize their mistake, they will be able to make millions fixing
the problem, and only thousands if they were sustaining.

[Leslie Swartz]

More like $370-$430 million, depending on length of produciton run.

The oft-quoted "$700 million" figure includes an allocated percentage of
sunk costs.

Those sunk costs have already been paid in the initial production run.

The need to allocate additional start-up costs is not zero, and grows with
every passing quarter as tooling, expertise, etc. evaporates.

Even though the fixed costs of production are mujch lowere in a follow-on
run, they are still not zero. And once again, the cost per unit will depend
on the number of units produced.

And to top it off, the "Logistics Costs" [sic] also depend on many factors;
they are particularly sensitive to two issues: the technology involved
(higher with the original buy; much lower on a follow-on buy), and the fleet
size (economies of scale kick in with the follow-on buy).

Steve Swartz



"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:NrCSc.14$ni.10@okepread01...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote
> > Billy Preston wrote:
> >
> > >There was an attempt to fund more bombers as B-2C's and
> > >they would be non-nuclear, and take advantage of what's been
> > >learned since the first design (which is a lot).
> >
> > Except that eliminating the nuclear OFP and hardening would save little
in
> > comparison to the $400+ million manufacturing cost. The B-2C would still
be a
> > very expensive aircraft to build and operate.
>
> More like 700 million :-(
>
> I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
> compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.
>
> I was always in Ops squadrons when I was in the Air Force, and have
> never seen the kind of money that is in the B-2 budget for Palmdale,
> Tinker, and Whiteman. Working alongside Northrop has shown me
> how to make millions in minutes, for basically telling Generals and
> Colonels what they want to hear. Regardless if Northrop ever delivers.
>
> I had a guy who's been with Northrop for 20 years tell me that they are
> not updating the B-2 modification database, and they are delivering the
> wrong parts to the field. His boss in LA told him not to worry about it,
> because the Air Force has decided not to fund the database, and when
> they finally realize their mistake, they will be able to make millions
fixing
> the problem, and only thousands if they were sustaining.
>
>

[Matt Wiser]

"Harley W Daugherty" > wrote:
>How many B-2's are currently inservice and how
>many more are in the
>production pipe, if any?
>
>Harley
>
>
20 in service, with no current plans to produce any more.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[BUFDRVR]

Billy Preston wrote:

>I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
>compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.
>

I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Paul F Austin]

"Billy Preston" wrote
..
>
> I was always in Ops squadrons when I was in the Air Force, and have
> never seen the kind of money that is in the B-2 budget for Palmdale,
> Tinker, and Whiteman. Working alongside Northrop has shown me
> how to make millions in minutes, for basically telling Generals and
> Colonels what they want to hear. Regardless if Northrop ever delivers.
>
> I had a guy who's been with Northrop for 20 years tell me that they are
> not updating the B-2 modification database, and they are delivering the
> wrong parts to the field. His boss in LA told him not to worry about it,
> because the Air Force has decided not to fund the database, and when
> they finally realize their mistake, they will be able to make millions
fixing
> the problem, and only thousands if they were sustaining.

There's this problem. If Northrop performed work to create and maintain that
(unfunded, unscoped) database and charged the labor to the government,
someone would go to jail.

[Leslie Swartz]

But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is calculated-
and then it isn't so shocking anymore. There is an *awful* lot of
"overhead" involved in fielding a weapon system- and then if you only have
one of them, and it only flies one hour per year . . . I exaggerate; but you
get my drift.

Steve Swartz




"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> >I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
> >compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.
> >
>
> I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote
>
> There's this problem. If Northrop performed work to create and maintain that
> (unfunded, unscoped) database and charged the labor to the government,
> someone would go to jail.

Right. No "JN", no work.

[Vicente Vazquez]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> > Harley W Daugherty wrote:
> > How many B-2's are currently in service
>
> 21

Yep. Serials are:

:: 82-1066 to 82-1071 (Development a/c later delivered as Block 30)
:: 88-0328 to 88-0332 (Block 10, later upgraded to Block 30)
:: 89-0127 to 89-0129 (Block 10, later upgraded to Block 30)
:: 90-0040 to 90-0041 (Block 10, later upgraded to Block 30)
:: 92-0700 (Block 20, later upgraded to Block 30)
:: 93-1085 to 93-1086 (Block 20, later upgraded to Block 30)
:: 93-1087 to 93-1088 (Block 30)

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> >I don't know if you have access to the numbers on logistics, but if you
> >compare the B-2 with any other bomber, the costs are phenomenal.
> >
>
> I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.

But aren't those numbers supposed to be coming down quite a bit courtesy of
the new joint covering process? ISTR reading recently that a big part of the
maintenance load for the B-2 was the excessive manhours and materiel needs
for covering all of the joints and fasteners, and the new method is supposed
to radically reduce this?

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>> I have seen numbers in relation to $ per flying hour. They were shocking.
>
>But aren't those numbers supposed to be coming down quite a bit courtesy of
>the new joint covering process?

I'm not sure if the numbers I saw were before or after the improved LO
maintenance procedures.

>ISTR reading recently that a big part of the
>maintenance load for the B-2 was the excessive manhours and materiel needs
>for covering all of the joints and fasteners, and the new method is supposed
>to radically reduce this?

Very true, but I've never seen anyone boast about this saving money, just how
it will increase FMC rates and turn around jets more easily.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Leslie Swartz wrote:

>But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is calculated-
>and then it isn't so shocking anymore.

Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1 and
B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that shocked
me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with the
B-52. Damn we're a bargain!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> Leslie Swartz wrote:
>
> >But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is
> >calculated-
> >and then it isn't so shocking anymore.
>
> Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1
> and
> B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that
> shocked
> me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with
> the
> B-52. Damn we're a bargain!
>

To make it an apples-and-apples comparison, of course, one needs to look
at the mission. There's no question the BUFF is a bargain for ARC LIGHT
(not LINEBACKER II) or the equivalent raids against Iraqis in 1991. In
both cases, however, there was either no air defense, or it had been
suppressed.

When one starts factoring in the SEAD, CAP, EW, etc., aircraft that
might be required to fight through a thick modern defense, the
individual aircraft flight hour cost isn't the only metric.

[David Lentz]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Leslie Swartz wrote:
>
> >But again- you have to know "what goes in to" CPFH and how it is
calculated-
> >and then it isn't so shocking anymore.
>
> Well, I assume what goes in to B-2 flying hour cost also goes in to B-1
and
> B-52 flying hour cost. It wasn't the total dollar figure per hour that
shocked
> me, it was the comparison with the other 2 bombers and particularly with
the
> B-52. Damn we're a bargain!
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Update me. The figure that kept getting beat into my head, back in my RBS
days and every time we missed an aircraft, was eight thousand dollars an
hour. Now don't ask how the figure was determined. It just the figure
which was preached over and over. So what is the current figure?

David

[BUFDRVR]

David wrote:

>Update me. The figure that kept getting beat into my head, back in my RBS
>days and every time we missed an aircraft, was eight thousand dollars an
>hour.

Hmm, I'll have to find the data because I thought BUFFs were the only bomber in
single digit thousands of dollars/hour???


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"hobo" > wrote
>
> The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
> contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
> to build zero. No more will be built because they are too expensive to
> build and operate.

Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
bankrupt the Soviets policy. 21 was the number that wouldn't
bankrupt us.

Having worked on the B-2A for 10 years now, I can say it fulfilled
its designed roll, but technology has caught-up with other bombers.

The B-2 was the only plane that could drop the big bridge in Serbia.
It did that with 4 JDAM's hitting the bridge at the same instant. The
B-1 and B-52 didn't have them. Now that they do, the supremacy
of the B-2 is merely stealth. With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
an option we can do without. Even C-17's can perform the role of
most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
sometimes outside the theater.

The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:KMtTc.984$ni.679@okepread01...
<snip>

With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
> an option we can do without.

But we ain't there yet, and won't be for at least a few more years (it has
been hoped to get a baseline UCAV to the USAF *starting* around 2007, but
that may in the end be a bit optimistic). Until such time that we have a
credible, reliable UCAV capability that can match the striking power of the
B-2, I'd just as soon keep that club in my bag--and right now, there is NO
realistic plan to acheive that (being as the B-2 can heft the really big
stuff like the GAM-36 (or is it 37?) that is WAY outside the carrying
capability of the UCAV's under consideration). If you have to go deep, into
denied airspace, against a reasonably hardened target, your UCAV might as
well sit on the tarmac, while the B-2 does the job. Then there is the issue
of range...the UCAV's under development in the near term are not exactly
really long haulers...

Even C-17's can perform the role of
> most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
> sometimes outside the theater.

Not really. To nitpick, the term you are grasping for there is "FLOT"
(Forward Line Own Troops), not "FEBA" (Forward Edge Battle Area); things can
still get pretty hairy on our side of the FEBA (which can be used to
describe the *limit* of major ground force operations, not necessarily where
they have already secured).

>
> The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
> and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
> the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
> plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.

Why don't we wait on that move until after the systems that would replace
their unique capabilities are actually in service, as opposed to being
"vaporware" as they are now?

Brooks

>
>

[Pooh Bear]

hobo wrote:

> The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
> contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
> to build zero.

Defence contractors need an assurance that they'll get loadsa money for
their efforts.

For the government, they need to see some hardware in return.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Billy Preston wrote:

> The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.

As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.

It worked.

Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?


Graham

[Billy Preston]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> > The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.
>
> As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.
>
> It worked.
>
> Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
> Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?

They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow. You can't fake it, you have
to build the real thing. Then the Soviets had to spend more money to defend
against it (more concrete, and deeper holes to put the defense forces).

[Pooh Bear]

Billy Preston wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> > Billy Preston wrote:
> >
> > > The B-2 was part of Reagan's bankrupt the Soviets policy.
> >
> > As were the cruise missiles stationed in the UK.
> >
> > It worked.
> >
> > Was Reagan actually clever enought to work it out or was it a long running
> > Pentagon ruse to bankrupt the Soviets by outsmarting them with technology ?
>
> They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow. You can't fake it, you have
> to build the real thing. Then the Soviets had to spend more money to defend
> against it (more concrete, and deeper holes to put the defense forces).

Yes, many cruise missiles had to be built to prove the point too !

At the time I had a g/f who thought the cruise missiles were a 'bad thing'. I,
for my part, was 'agnostic' re nuclear weapons, as in : MAD seemed to work.

I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat of use of certain weapons in
essence caused the CCCP to dismantle itself.

It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough to think it through in
advance - but was that the case ?

Was it simply pure luck ?


Graham

[BUFDRVR]

Billy Preston wrote:

>They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow.

After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Billy Preston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Billy Preston wrote:
>
> >They thought the B-2 could fly over Moscow.
>
> After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!

I'm sorry to say I am old enough to remember his flight :-)

I think Flight Sim 2000 had a Mathias Adventure as one of
the games...

[BUFDRVR]

Billy Preston wrote:

>> After Mathias Rust, I'm sure they *knew* it could!
>
>I'm sorry to say I am old enough to remember his flight :-)

Around 1993-94 I saw an interview with a *former* Russian (Soviet) Air Force
general who claimed Mathias Rust caused more Air Defense modifications (which
was *very* expensive) than both the B-1B and B-2.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mike Dargan]

Billy Preston wrote:

> "hobo" > wrote
>
>>The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
>>contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
>>to build zero. No more will be built because they are too expensive to
>>build and operate.
>
>
> Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
> penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
> bankrupt the Soviets policy.

Mathias Rust had more impact than ray-gun Reagan.

Cheers

--mike

21 was the number that wouldn't
> bankrupt us.
>
> Having worked on the B-2A for 10 years now, I can say it fulfilled
> its designed roll, but technology has caught-up with other bombers.
>
> The B-2 was the only plane that could drop the big bridge in Serbia.
> It did that with 4 JDAM's hitting the bridge at the same instant. The
> B-1 and B-52 didn't have them. Now that they do, the supremacy
> of the B-2 is merely stealth. With unmanned bombers, stealth becomes
> an option we can do without. Even C-17's can perform the role of
> most B-52's that drop cruise missiles from outside the FEBA, and
> sometimes outside the theater.
>
> The B-2 should be rounded-up and moved to DM. I work on them,
> and I can say without reservation (along with my co-workers), that
> the plane will never have an FMC rate that is worth the expense. The
> plane is a welfare program for the Northrop conglomerate.
>
>

[Billy Preston]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote
>
> > Actually, they were built, because the B-1 and B-52 could no longer
> > penetrate the Moscow defenses. The B-2 was part of Reagan's
> > bankrupt the Soviets policy.
>
> Mathias Rust had more impact than ray-gun Reagan.

Bzzt! Bufdrvr already beat you to that comment :-)

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
BUFDRVR > wrote:

>Around 1993-94 I saw an interview with a *former* Russian (Soviet) Air Force
>general who claimed Mathias Rust caused more Air Defense modifications (which
>was *very* expensive) than both the B-1B and B-2.

Of course they changed their operational procedures, but I
wonder what they did which cost money? They saw and
intercepted him and must have been aware that sometimes
aircraft fly at low altitudes so why would that incident
get them to improve low altitude coverage?
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

[robert arndt]

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> hobo wrote:
>
> > The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
> > contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
> > to build zero.
>
> Defence contractors need an assurance that they'll get loadsa money for
> their efforts.
>
> For the government, they need to see some hardware in return.
>
>
> Graham


Ought to be interesting to see if any of the projected "B-3" concepts
actually get built:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/b-3_Hypersonic-2.jpg

As far as black projects go I've heard that each TR-3B ASTRA costs 3
billion!! So, the thought of building yet another manned bomber that
doesn't leave the atmosphere would seem ridiculous and obsolete.
Aerospace defense platforms are the future, leave the atmosphere to
the UCAVs...

Rob

[BUFDRVR]

Urban Fredriksson wrote:

>They saw and intercepted him

I'm not sure this is a documented fact. I've seen interviews where it was
claimed Rust's landing in Red Square was not a surprise, but I've read other
publications claiming that he was tracked, at best, intermittently across
Eastern Europe, Ukraine and finally Russia.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[rob]

"Pooh Bear" wrote
> I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat of use of certain weapons
in
> essence caused the CCCP to dismantle itself.
>
> It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough to think it through
in
> advance - but was that the case ?
>
> Was it simply pure luck ?
>
>
> Graham
>
>

There was a book written around 1960 by a Harvard Uni Professor (I forget
the name of the book or author sorry) that predicted that Communism couldn't
work. He also said that because of increasing defense costs and because the
USSR spent huge portions of their available budget on the military, not to
mention the Soviets mentality that the best way to overthrow them was to
build up your military and wait. I dont know if Reagan or his team ever
heard of this book but the idea had been around for years. The cost of
Technology and not being burdened by Vietnam meant that the time had finally
come in the '80s

I'm really ****ed off with myself that I cant remember the books title

Rob

[Jack]

rob wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" wrote
>
>> I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat
>> of use of certain weapons in essence caused the CCCP
>> to dismantle itself.
>>
>> It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough
>> to think it through in advance....

> There was a book written around 1960 by a Harvard...Professor...
> that predicted that Communism couldn't work. He also said that
because of increasing defense costs and because the
> USSR spent huge portions of their available budget on the military, not to
> mention the Soviets mentality that the best way to overthrow them was to
> build up your military and wait.

More remarkable is that it took a Harvard professor until "around 1960"
to figure out that Communism couldn't work. Many people understood
earlier that the USSR would eventually fall, as long as we stood fast
and met it on all fronts, including in places like Viet Nam (as badly
botched as that particular effort was tactically).

Islamist terrorism will also be snuffed out eventually, albeit with a
different set of tools.

The Chinese are a bigger problem over the long run.


Jack

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
BUFDRVR > wrote:
>Urban Fredriksson wrote:

>>They saw and intercepted him

>I'm not sure this is a documented fact.

Maybe not.

>I've seen interviews where it was
>claimed Rust's landing in Red Square was not a surprise, but I've read other
>publications claiming that he was tracked, at best, intermittently across
>Eastern Europe, Ukraine and finally Russia.

Ukraine isn't on the way to Moscow from Helsinki. The
official Soviet line is he was first intercepted at the
north coast of Estonia. Could be face saving, but I've no
doubts they had full radar coverage along the coast even
if they lost him later. I don't buy the story that the
Border Guard Day had anything to do with him slipping
past.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.

[BUFDRVR]

Urban Fredriksson wrote:

>Ukraine isn't on the way to Moscow from Helsinki.

Well, I'll admit to ignorance on this one. I had thought (prior to reading your
post) he had flown direct from Hamburg to Moscow, after some initial reasearch,
I stand corrected. Thanks.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Pooh Bear]

robert arndt wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> > hobo wrote:
> >
> > > The only reason any B-2s were built at all is because the way the
> > > contracts were structured it would have cost just as much to build 21 as
> > > to build zero.
> >
> > Defence contractors need an assurance that they'll get loadsa money for
> > their efforts.
> >
> > For the government, they need to see some hardware in return.
> >
> >
> > Graham
>
> Ought to be interesting to see if any of the projected "B-3" concepts
> actually get built:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/b-3_Hypersonic-2.jpg
>
> As far as black projects go I've heard that each TR-3B ASTRA costs 3
> billion!! So, the thought of building yet another manned bomber that
> doesn't leave the atmosphere would seem ridiculous and obsolete.
> Aerospace defense platforms are the future, leave the atmosphere to
> the UCAVs...

The concept of building another super hi-tech bomber in the absence of a credible threat that couldn't be
defeated by existing hardware is insane.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Jack wrote:

> rob wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" wrote
> >
> >> I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat
> >> of use of certain weapons in essence caused the CCCP
> >> to dismantle itself.
> >>
> >> It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough
> >> to think it through in advance....
>
> > There was a book written around 1960 by a Harvard...Professor...
> > that predicted that Communism couldn't work. He also said that
> because of increasing defense costs and because the
> > USSR spent huge portions of their available budget on the military, not to
> > mention the Soviets mentality that the best way to overthrow them was to
> > build up your military and wait.
>
> More remarkable is that it took a Harvard professor until "around 1960"
> to figure out that Communism couldn't work.

But in WW2 it was Communism and the mass manufacturing under state control it
constructed that enabled the Russians to ultimately defeat the Germans.
Tankograd for example.


> Many people understood
> earlier that the USSR would eventually fall, as long as we stood fast
> and met it on all fronts, including in places like Viet Nam (as badly
> botched as that particular effort was tactically).

Viet Nam was a classic case of poking your nose in where it wasn't either wanted
or appropriate. Shoring up a corrupt regime was plain stupid.

I doubt it had any effect other than negative.


> Islamist terrorism will also be snuffed out eventually, albeit with a
> different set of tools.

You gonna convert them to Christianity ? I assume that by 'eventually' you mean
maybe 100-1000 yrs ? You won't 'defeat' Islamic 'terrorism' until you get to
understand Islam and how the Arab mind thinks. At which point you'll realise the
errors of your ways to date.

Don't forget - one man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter' ! In WW2 the
French resistance were heroic from the standpoint of the Allies but terrorists
to the Germans. It's merely a point of view. The victor's opinion pervails.


> The Chinese are a bigger problem over the long run.

The Chinese are now capitalists.

The only problem that China presents is that they may be better capitalists than
you are ! Are you sure your job is secure ?


Graham

[Venik]

Pooh Bear wrote:

> The concept of building another super hi-tech bomber in the absence
of a credible threat that couldn't be
> defeated by existing hardware is insane.
>

It's called technological progress and it's not insane. If you have a
credible threat but don't have a new weapon in development - that's insane.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse

[Paul F Austin]

"rob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" wrote
> > I confess to being kinda amazed that the threat of use of certain
weapons
> in
> > essence caused the CCCP to dismantle itself.
> >
> > It almost beggars belief that someone was smart enough to think it
through
> in
> > advance - but was that the case ?
> >
> > Was it simply pure luck ?
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
> There was a book written around 1960 by a Harvard Uni Professor (I forget
> the name of the book or author sorry) that predicted that Communism
couldn't
> work. He also said that because of increasing defense costs and because
the
> USSR spent huge portions of their available budget on the military, not to
> mention the Soviets mentality that the best way to overthrow them was to
> build up your military and wait. I dont know if Reagan or his team ever
> heard of this book but the idea had been around for years. The cost of
> Technology and not being burdened by Vietnam meant that the time had
finally
> come in the '80s
>

The idea hadn't "been around for years". Some people (mostly on the right)
had said that the "inherent contradictions" of the Soviet system would lead
to it's collapse but 1. no "reputable" policy maker during the '60s, '70s or
early '80s advocated policy based on the impending collapse of the Sovs and
2. no intel shop anywhere in the US _predicted_ worsening Soviet economic
conditions. To the contrary, the foreign policy "establishment" both
Democratic and Republican assumed that the Sovs would be a permanent
fixture. That was the origins of Kissengerian "Detente" and Carterian
lectures about "inordinate fears" of Communism. Reagan had faith in the
"inherent contradictions" and several private citizens (including fairly
famously, Robert Heinlein) looked at the Sovs and saw through the Evil
Empire's New Clothes but the policy establishment did not. The decline and
collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest intelligence failure in the
last fifty years and the soft landing that resulted from that collapse, the
largest miracle.