It's Saturday, Ian is enjoying his schnops :-).

On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote :
....
And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
any concievable target, that would only be redundant.

Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
preclude the possibility that one exists.

There may be alligators under my bed, so I sleep
with a shot-gun?

Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
the future, good planning will provide the future we want.

Below \, I'm seeing politics, that is thread drift.
Ken

The only limitation of the Veitnam conflict that matters
is the determination of the Dhimmicraps to lose it and the
subsequent determination by wiser heads that would never
happen again.
The only people stuck with a Vietnam mindeset were Dhimmicraps
notably Ivan Felchgoat Trotsqerry and his ilk. Hell they even
tried out Winter Soldier again. Got their asses handed to them
because they didn't realise times and technology had changed.

[snip]

I could just as easily say it's you Ed, who lacks the
critical understanding, especially in grand strategy,
quite apart from politics. I respect Reagan's desire
to reduce dependancy on nukes to a minimum, and
I think Obama will follow that.

No, Soetaro's going to try and bilaterally disarm ( us and
the Russians ). He'll attempt to ignore China and the
looney-toon regimes ( Iran and North Korea )

[snip]

To be on the safe side, we bought a gallon of Vicks
Vapo-rub.

What? Soetaro hasn't nationalised it already?

[snip]

Very nice Ed.
We won't need #1 and #2 if we have #3, so now that
returns to the problem of geopolitically defining and
encouraging "Rational leadership".

Sez you. Evidently bunches of folks who know far more about
the topic disagree.

[snip]

Why, did you respect Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"

And you think this was a peacenik panaceaea?

plan? Ever read his "Military Industrial Complex" speech?

Did you understand it? Sounds like you didn't.

How about the 1963 CIA evaluation of Vietnam involvement?

And the Dhimmicraps went ahead anyway. Vietnam was doable
just not the way Kennedy and Johnson went about it.

Is caring for the casualties in Vietnam "emotional drivel"?
Of course you have, I connect the dots.

Casualty care in Vietname was actually pretty good. You
had a better chance of surviving than in previous con-
flicts. By the time Iraq I & II popped up your odds
were even better.

IBM