Major McSally takes command :)

Ed Rasimus wrote in message

That being said, however, I'll disagree with your contention that
strategic missiles did more to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union
than the tactical forces and the continued development and application
of weapons that demonstrated conclusively the superiority of American
technology, training and innovation. The collapse of Soviet client
forces and the inability of Soviet doctrine to counter or even compete
effectively led to the collapse.

Sitting and waiting with a deterrent force kept the peace, but it also
insured a stalemate. Demonstrating over the years that SA-2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 11, 12, 13, etc. etc. couldn't protect against American airpower
and that MiG-17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29 and AA-2,, etc etc, couldn't
counter US fighters, the armor couldn't shoot, scoot and communicate
as did ours and the maneuver elements of the ground forces couldn't
integrate and coordinate at the level of our tactical forces, and the
Navy couldn't project and sustain operations globally as ours could,
etc. etc. That's what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


I agree with everything you said, and defer to your expertise in these
areas. However, it is also true that trying to keep up with our
strategic weapons during the Reagan administration-- Peacekeeper,
Small ICBM, stealth technology, and others-- had no small part in
breaking the bear's budget and hastening the collapse of the Soviet
Union.

Jim Thomas

Ed Rasimus Wrote:

Sitting and waiting with a deterrent force kept the peace, but it also
insured a stalemate. Demonstrating over the years that SA-2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 11, 12, 13, etc. etc. couldn't protect against American airpower
and that MiG-17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29 and AA-2,, etc etc, couldn't
counter US fighters, the armor
couldn't shoot, scoot and communicate
as did ours and the maneuver elements of the ground forces couldn't
integrate and coordinate at the level of our tactical forces, and the
Navy couldn't project and sustain operations globally as ours could,
etc. etc. That's what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


I think this may be a chicken-egg argument. I can argue that without U.S. ICBMs
(and hey, I'll even throw in SLBMs) to counter the Soviet equivelent, we would
never have been able to duel with Soviet client states as the USSR would have
felt much more at ease to step in and escalate things.

Snapping your fingers will keep the elephants away, if they aren't
coming anyway. Going where the elephant lives and kicking him in the
balls will get him to move out of the region.

In this case, the conventional world may have been kicking the elephant in the
nuts, but the nuclear guys had a knife at his throat allowing that to happen.


BUFDRVR

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

From: (Jim Thomas)
Date: 5/9/2004 11:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time
Message-id:

Aw, c'mon, Ed; give some credit to those folks who spent hours and
days in the ballistic missile holes. I would argue that what they did
on alert had more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union than
anything we fighter pilots ever did. My last USAF assignment was with
the Ballistic Missile Office at Norton AFB

Just spent some time there last week. What was Norton AFB, is now San
Bernardino International, not that there are exactly many international flights
or any airline traffic there. But it is host to a USFS tanker base, so got
quite a few loads of retardant there last week . Even saw my tanker on an La tv
station doing a drop.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base