Apollo: The Race Against Time

At the cost of a single B-2 (something like several billion) I can almost understand it.....but its a plane, a current production plane. We can make more, honest.

-Aaron

It is a strategic bomber, to replace the aging B-52's, etc. They cost about $2B each (probably a LOT more in todays dollars), hence the "national treasure". The B2 is not invulnerable, and it's intended use puts it at risk of loss.

A "National treasure" and being very expensive aren't the same thing.

It will be on again at 8AM on Saturday Sept 3

Yrue, but the B2 is a technological marvel of the cold war, and a source of US national pride. That national pride will be injured when we lose a few of them in combat. The B2 is a national asset worthy of protection, not just another sacrificial war machine.

If We don't use them, there's no justification to maintaining them. Being the cold war marvel that it is, I find it difficult to believe that any of our current enemies would have the realistic chance of bringing a B2 down, let alone even detecting it.

It's a stealth bomber! Maybe it drops stealth bombs! Maybe we HAVE used it and nobody knows it! ;-)

Hey, when I was in the Air Force, I was assigned to Air Defense Command. We were the guys who put the harm in the way of Russian bombers.

Bill Sulllivan

"Initiating the 'getting-the-hell-out-of-here' maneuver."

Actually, that's kinda how battleships worked from 1908 to 1944. They were too valuable to risk in combat, but extremely valuable in their deterrent effect. The Tirpitz (Bismarck's twin sister) spent much of WWII sitting in a fiord, but probably tied up three times her equivalents in Royal Navy warships making sure the Tirpitz didn't make a run for the trade channels.

As long as the B-2 poses a threat, real or perceived, it's tying up enemy resources, typically in the form of detection and countermeasures.

I'm not saying they're worth more unused than used, but they're certainly more threatening before they're shot down than after :)

Doug

That's your point, not mine. Of course Rumsfeld would say, "You go to war with what ever you have."

And on that note, we must return to sport rocketry topics, and let the national treasure fend for itself.

So it's NOT all about Jerry?

This should REALLY be in the FAQ!

You are cluless about what he is saying. You are cluless about strategic war issues. You are insensitive to military pride because you were never near it.

:)

They were going through withdrawals.

Why do you say that? Be specific.

Why do you say that? Be specific.

I have never been a member of the Armed Forces, neither have you. What's your point?

You missed it again :)

No, I got your point, you're a dipsh*t.

Tell us something we don't know.

"if you can trust a man's word, what good is it to put it on paper."

Post your own copy of the 4-1-91 PT agreement you signed and were served with.

My name is Jerry Irvine.

Have balls. Or not.

Jerry

What's wrong jerry? Are you unable to answer the above questions?

First, why would I post such a thing? For starters, the date you mention is after the powertech partnership breakup, secondly, I was never served with such a document, and thirdly, you, jerry irvine, were fond guilty of civil fraud. Contracts and written agreements cannot be used to enforce a crime. Last time I checked, fraud was a crime.

But hey, nothing is stopping you from posting your fraudulent document.

The evidence is in. you Have no balls.