New fighter jet to bolster Russian air force, and India

[The Brain]

The US needed nuclear combat with the Russians.

[Ideologue]

In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations.  It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.

I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.

It would seem to me the proper course would be change the mission to suit the needs the US rather then focus on a mission that will never come.

You don't understand deterrence, my friend.

[Razgovory]

I do, it's spelled I-C-B-M.

[Ideologue]

I do, it's spelled I-C-B-M.

Second strike capability.  Especially prior to the advent of accurate and MIRVed SLBMs.

Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam.  I mean, I implied that.  But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions.  There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed.  Nixon knew the score.

[Ed Anger]

I say we should have nuked Hanoi. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Nuke the moon.

[grumbler]

You don't understand deterrence, my friend.

Nor do you, my friend.

[The Minsky Moment]

Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam.  I mean, I implied that.  But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions.  There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed. 

Such as destructive bombing offensives against targets in North Vietnam.  Which was done, several times.

[Ideologue]

Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam.  I mean, I implied that.  But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions.  There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed. 

Such as destructive bombing offensives against targets in North Vietnam.  Which was done, several times.

When?  My understanding is that it was not until 1966 that Hanoi and Haiphong could even be attacked by tactical aircraft, and that Johnson refused to "escalate" by sending B-52s very far north.  Thus, it was not until the closing days of the war, specifically the Linebacker operations, and even more specifically Linebacker II, that Hanoi and Haiphong were attacked by massed B-52 formations.  Which had a great deal of military impact.

However, even then, at no point was terror bombing ever contemplated.  Moreover, there was never a systematic plan designed to destroy North Vietnam's ability and will to support operations in South Vietnam through airpower--only impulsive and desultory raids, beginning with Arc Light anti-tree operations, and which regrettably includes even the otherwise successful Linebacker II.  Of course, this is a charge you can level at the U.S. involvement in Vietnam more generally.  Personally, I think U.S. involvement was a mistake, but that's not germane here.

In any event, you certainly cannot compare the strategic air war over Vietnam to those over German, Japan, or--more relevantly--North Korea.  (Ever seen photos of Pyongyang in 1948?  Looks like Slaughterhouse Five.)

So, to clarify my question, when did the USAF engage in a destructive bombing offensive as sustained as the ones over Germany, Japan, or even North Korea?

P.S.But at least we did a better job bombing Vietnam than we did China, which is to say "at all."

[MadImmortalMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

[Ideologue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

[Ideologue]

You don't understand deterrence, my friend.

Nor do you, my friend.

In what manner?  Fixed ICBMs are more vulnerable to a first strike than airborne or seaborne (or land mobile) launch platforms, reducing their deterrent value.

[Neil]

But still not especially, thanks to early warning tech.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.

[Ideologue]

I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.

1) Yes, I'm well known as an implacable critic of Carter in specific and the Democratic Party in general and 2)  my voting rights as an oocyte were rather limited.

But still not especially, thanks to early warning tech.

True.  The bomber still had a role in the case of that system's failure or disruption.  They also had the advantage of being recallable, permitting some ongoing control of the situation and greater flexibility in targeting, escalation, etc.

But like I said, SSBNs also had those advantages, with greater survivability.

[Razgovory]

I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.

My mom was a delegate for Hart back '84.