"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.