Hypersonic Bomber in Lieu of XB-70

[KJ_Lesnick]

@Pyro-Manic

Do you actually understand the concept of deterrence?

Yes I do, using the threat of (in this case) nuclear force to scare the bejeezus out of your enemy so as to maintain the peace.

Your postings really make it seem to me like you are missing something fundamental.

This kind of weapon could be a deterrence tool, but if used as such the enemy would develop defenses...

[pyro-manic]

Then what do you think nuclear weapons are for, if not deterrence?

[rickshaw]

@Pyro-Manic

Do you actually understand the concept of deterrence?

Yes I do, using the threat of (in this case) nuclear force to scare the bejeezus out of your enemy so as to maintain the peace.

BUT, as I keep pointing out, Kendra/Robynne you keep trying to introduce systems which increase the level of fear to the point where it becomes so great that they feel they must act in order to prevent your perceived ability to undertake a first-strike against them is removed, by them mounting their own first strike!  This is what I mean about destabilising MAD.   It is not called a "balance" for nothing, its like a set of scales where fear is balanced by value.

Your postings really make it seem to me like you are missing something fundamental.

This kind of weapon could be a deterrence tool, but if used as such the enemy would develop defenses...

How do you defend against a doomsday weapon which is intended to ensure that your decapitation strike fails?   You have to either develop something which destroys the doomsday weapon (Perimeter/Dead Hand) and the command and control system and your enemy's strategic nuclear forces simultaneously or is capable of defeating the overwhelming majority of incoming attacking warheads from their retaliatory strikes.   As we know, that is impossible.   Therefore, you're chasing a chimera in order to make it possible for you to wage aggressive war, which is accepted as being morally wrong by most participants.

As I keep pointing out, Kendra/Robynne you MUST put yourself in your opponent's shoes and look at nuclear deterrence from THEIR perspective.  It is not so much about how you believe your actions are motivated but how they perceive your actions are motivated in a MAD situation.  You must accept that anything you do, could upset the delicate balance between how much they fear you and the danger of them fearing you so much that they will undertake a pre-emptive strategic attack.

This is what was wrong with Reagan's Star Wars Initiative.  He believed it was being done to protect the USA from a pre-emptive, surprise attack by the fUSSR.  The fUSSR believed it was being done to allow the USA to mount a pre-emptive, surprise attack on the fUSSR.   That the US was basing its decision to undertake this initiative on the faulty perception that the fUSSR was already undertaking it's own Star Wars, was partly the fUSSR's fault because of its secretiveness (in reality most of the fUSSR's research into such concepts had foundered on expense and technical problems well before the Reagan initiative).   Reagan belief that everybody knew that the US would never undertake a pre-emptive strategic nuclear attack was faulty because in reality the fUSSR perceived the US as being an aggressive nation which was too willing to engage in brinkmanship activities (which it has and continues to be), not a benign, compromising nation.  He failed to understand the fUSSR viewpoint and the result was increasing tensions and the possibility of destabilising the strategic balance between the two, to the point that a nuclear war could have broken out.

So, the fUSSR created Perimeter/Dead Hand, to ensure that any pre-emptive nuclear attack was doomed to failure.  Even if a decapitation strike occurred, then retaliation would occur.   

The fUSSR BTW didn't help matters.  It's invasion of Afghanistan, which on Moscow's part was in reality a desperate effort to try and stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism into the Central Asian Republics, was perceived mistakenly in Washington and elsewhere, as an attempt at the Russians supposed age-old desire to gain access to a warm-water port (on the Persian Gulf) and control of the Middle-East's oil supply, which the West was and remains heavily dependent on.  The fUSSR found itself embroiled in trying to suppress Islamic fundamentalism in exactly the same way Washington has, today, in exactly the same location.   This is just history seemingly endlessly repeating itself.  The British discovered the same lessons when trying to protect the North-West frontier of India from misperceived Tsarist intentions in Central Asia in "The Great Game".

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

Immaterial, it could have been an agricultural arcadia, it would have been valued the same.

One member said it had to do with something regarding a nkickbein frequency or something

Combination of factors but the point was, the British had broken the codes, knew that Coventry was the target and then unfortunately guessed the wrong frequency.

The code breaking was considered as it's codename implied, the most important secret, even higher than Atomic plans.

Especially to the British...

Yes and the problem with that is?  To them, this was the most importance secret.  It was the one which allowed them to see into their enemy's decision making.  It allowed them to understand what was about to happen (or had happened, if the codebreaking was late).   To them, nothing else mattered.   In the end, it allowed them to outfight their enemy strategically.   To them, the United States jeopardised all that on a thirst for revenge.

There is no evidence of deliberate bombing of German cities having been ordered by Churchill.

Even Berlin?

At that stage in early 1940, yes.   Later, as the bomber offensive grew, then obviously the decision was taken to undertake the bombing of cities, to destroy German morale, to disable their industry and to terrorise their population.  Remember, "blow things up and kill people"?

You have to remember how inaccurate navigation was at the time.  Even when they were aiming for cities, they rarely found their targets.

Did he realize bombing was this inaccurate in 1940?

Nope.  Even the RAF believed the lie.  It wasn't until Operations Research discovered the fact that the policy changed from "pin point bombing" to "area bombing" and improved navigation was trained for and aids created.   As Jones remarked (paraphrased), "by the time the war had ended, the RAF was capable of doing what it had claimed at the war's start but no longer required it," as far as night-time navigation went.

And nearly exposed the MAGIC intercepts and codebreaking operation...

Why didn't they figure it out?

Complacency.  However, all that was required was for some Japanese officer to put two and two together, become suspicious and recommend the changing of the codes and the US would have been stuffed.  The Germans did become suspicious and changed their codes and cypher systems several times during the war, with the result that the British were invariably put back in their codebreaking by several months and had to start all over again.  That they were successful shows how tenacious and important they felt it was.

Which do you consider more important?  Satisfying an atavistic desire for revenge on one man or defeating your enemy?

Defeating the enemy, but getting rid of Yamamoto in this case probably helped defeat them

Not really.  Yamamoto was becoming increasingly sidelined.  His pessimism about the outcome of the war meant that the Japanese High Command were losing confidence in him.  Getting rid of him was purely because of hatred for the Architect of Pearl Harbor.

It didn't, as it came after any such nuclear bomber.  It concerned them because it was extremely accurate and because it was launched from Western Europe, reaction time was substantially decreased - destabilising in itself.  Their fear was that the combination would be used to attack deep, hardened targets - primarily command and control centres in Western fUSSR.

So they thought it would do additional damage to the bombers and facilitate deeper strikes?

As it came after the development of ICBMs, their fear was that Pershing II and GLCM stationed in Western Europe would shorten their reaction times considerably and they wouldn't be able to defend against them.

A hypersonic bomber would have a similar effect.  In both cases, it was or would have been destabilising.  In the case of Pershing, coupled with Star Wars, meant that a decapitation strike was increasingly possible.

With a bit of fiddling, it was feared it could hit as far East as Moscow.

Was that correct provided it is not still classified?

The potential was never developed but always remember, this is about PERCEPTIONS, not reality.  If you perceive your enemy is capable of this, then they you must plan to counter this.

Both command concepts have problems.   Humans tend to be slower reacting and more discriminating than computers and in the case of retaliation system, which is designed to overcome the dangers of decapitation of the command and control structure and ensure that your systems are launched, no matter what

However, in the event that a computer malfunction occurred, we wouldn't necessarily be able to stop things fast enough...

That is a danger.  However, which is the greater danger in our mind?  You as the high command are assured that computer malfunction is highly unlikely yet the danger of a decapitation strike is highly likely. Which do you fear the most?

Most Westerners, because they have been fed a continuous diet of anti-technology claptrap are deadly afraid of computers and robots and so on.  In the East, where they haven't been, they're much more afraid of human betrayal, people or groups going "rogue", etc.  A good example is the attitude of the Japanese to robots compared to Americans.  Americans believe in the future of Terminator.  The Japanese are already using robots in their society to care for their elderly, to provide medical help, to act as helpers in disasters, etc.   In an ultimately paranoid state, like the fUSSR where loyalty to the State is always questionable, which do you think they believed was more reliable?

The US by fielding more and more accurate delivery systems, which were perceived would be used to destroy the humans at the top of the chain of command, the fUSSR leadership felt that the only way to deter the US was to create Perimeter.

It wasn't to deter us... it was to ensure we'd be destroyed in retaliation...

As has already been asked by Pyro, it appears you don't understand what deterrence is, Kendra/Robynne   

If you know that this system is designed to ensure you'll be destroyed if you mount a pre-emptive strike which is designed to decapitate the Command and Control structure of the fUSSR, you don't think you'll be deterred from undertaking that pre-emptive first strike?   

The Perimeter system still exists and is now publicised, therefore a decapitation strike against Russia is pointless.

Correct

So you are deterred from undertaking it?   

That is the question.  I've always suggested the psychological effects would be far greater than the material ones.  One only has to see the reaction to 11 September to see how true that was.

Actually, on September 11th, my concern was actually more so that the Pentagon got hit: Honestly I thought they had missile batteries tucked into the place.

When the towers collapsed, my concern was because I thought that roughly 50,000 to 70,000 would die instead of 3,000.

In hindsight, however -- the worst tragedy to come out of 9/11 was the fact that it became a justification to wage a war on our civil liberties.

Collateral damage, I would suggest Kendra/Robynne.  Unfortunate but look it from the perspective of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.  What consequences do you think they suffered?

Both the fUSSR and the USA had been surprised attacked before the Cold War.  It was their greatest fear that it would happen again and drove everything they did during that war to make sure it didn't happen again.  The fUSSR developed the aforementioned Perimeter/Dead Hand to make sure doing so was pointless.  The USA tried to build robust detection and communication systems which were then developed into the Internet you use today.

More Americans are lost each year on the roads or to guns.

43,000 to accidents, 11,000 to guns approximately

Rather proves my point.  When we going to see wars waged on either problem?

He didn't understand the full consequences of the employment of Anthrax, seeing it merely as another weapon which could be used.

Far as I understood, he might have overestimated the effects -- the amount of anthrax they could drop wasn't adequate enough.  His idea was to deploy it over fields so cattle would eat it; they would be slaughtered and would be fed unwittingly to the population where they would waste people by the millions; those who survived would starve to death as the remaining cattle would die.

Not sure where you got that from.  According to everything I've read, the plan was to drop it on cities, notably Berlin which would have rendered them uninhabitable for decades until some form of steam decontamination was possible of the entire area.   The island where they tested it, Gruinard remained uninhabitable for over sixty years until they sterilised the entire island utilising high temperature steam.  Even today, while people can visit, it is recommended you don't tary long because of the dangers still present there from Anthrax.  Doing that to multiple German cities, including the capital would have been possible with the resources of Bomber Command in 1943.

A.A.Milne who wrote the "Winnie the Poo" stories was a noted pacifist in WWII.  He suggested that each bomb that was dropped represented a moral choice for the droppers.   Harris, like Churchill was ruthless in pursuit of an objective and as our previous discussions about him and other followers of Douhet and Trenchard, terror was what they sought to promote, in order to influence the decision making of the enemy nation's leadership.

I understand what they wanted to do... I think it was repulsive and hard to defend.

But they still did it.  You do understand what "ruthless" means?  LeMay did exactly the same thing with firebombing Japanese cities.  He understood that they would burn and create firestorms.  He understood what that would do to their populations and he still did it because he was a ruthless fuzzy bunny pursuing the objective of the defeat of Japan.   In the Cold War he had SAC conduct unauthorised overflights of the fUSSR because he felt that was the best way to defeat the fUSSR.  He actually wanted to provoke the fUSSR so that the US could respond with all it's might, without concern as to the consequences for either the population of the fUSSR or the USA and it's allies.  He was prepared to accept millions of casualties as long as the US triumphed.   For him, the cost was worth achieving his objective.

Air warfare is always, at it's most basic is always going to be about killing people and destroying stuff.

All warfare revolves around killing people and destroying stuff.  However, it's one thing when you're actually setting out to kill those that need killing and leave those that don't alone; then to actually target people who are knowingly defenseless.

Which brings us back to our previous discussion of Air Power theorists, Kendra/Robynne.  You appear, like the concept of "deterrence" not to understand what Air Power is and what it is meant to do and how it achieves it.

It is about bending your enemy to your will, making them submit through, "killing people and destroying stuff".  That it does so by striking directly at the enemy homeland and it's population is how it achieves it.  At it's most basic level it is the inducing of terror in the minds and hearts of the enemy nation.  Whether you achieve that through "pin point bombing", "dehousing" "fire bombing" or "nuclear attack" is immaterial.  I have made that point before and it appears you have failed to grasp it.   The application is not about neat, little craters in the ground with only buildings/structures/industries destroyed.  That is how the modern Air Power theorists attempt to portray it.  It is the promise of "Brilliant" munitions and "small diameter bombs" but the reality is, the people who are standing around where those munitions and/or bombs hit end up dead still.  Their relatives/friends who survive become either fearful and/or vengeful.  They eventually (in theory) though, will surrender, when the casualties/damage/fear are perceived to be too great.  That is the bare boned truth of the matter.  You can accept the euphemisms they feed you, if you like but it won't alter the truth.   

Describing it as "collateral damage" and other such euphemisms might salve the conscious of those doing it, it doesn't really hide what it is though, now does it?

Collateral damage is a disengenuous term during the firebombing attacks in WW2 -- simply because it was the actual goal.  Collateral damage is incidental to the objective.

People still end up dead.  The objective is to induce terror in the enemy population and thence force them, to force their government to surrender.   Simple as that.   

You're seeing this from only one side, Kendra/Robynn.  I included Moscow and Leningrad because who are they important to and who would be making the same decisions that the US leadership would be, but from the otherside?

Yeah, but I'm thinking from the US perspective and who cares about the other side?

The other side?   Remember, the Cold War was a balance of fear and terror between two alliance systems.  If you look at this only from one side, you'll never understand why the other one acted in the way it did.

The loss of any city to a nuclear warhead is an unimaginable tragedy with massive consequences physically, morally and psychologically.

The destruction would be as horrifying as all the firebombing attacks in WW2 were... the only exception would be that they occur greatly faster in the immediate term.

All the firestorm attacks occurred over about 24-48 hours.  That is very fast, on a human scale.  The city is there one day, gone the next.   That a nuclear weapon does it in minutes is immaterial really.  You're right that it would be like the firebombings or Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again.

And Reagan was really so naive that he didn't?    Wasn't he nicknamed the "great communicator"?

Seems out of character still...

Or he was more calculating than he is normally given credit for...   

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rick's Shaw

BUT, as I keep pointing out, Kendra/Robynne you keep trying to introduce systems which increase the level of fear to the point where it becomes so great that they feel they must act in order to prevent your perceived ability to undertake a first-strike against them is removed, by them mounting their own first strike!

I'm aware of this...

It is not called a "balance" for nothing, its like a set of scales where fear is balanced by value.

I actually do understand the concept: I also understand that people say one thing and do another.  Are you telling me if the US had the means to successfully hit the USSR where it hurt and not got shot back we would have not done it?

How do you defend against a doomsday weapon which is intended to ensure that your decapitation strike fails?   You have to either develop something which destroys the doomsday weapon (Perimeter/Dead Hand) and the command and control system and your enemy's strategic nuclear forces simultaneously or is capable of defeating the overwhelming majority of incoming attacking warheads from their retaliatory strikes.

Prior to 1984 there was no Perimeter or Dead Hand... in 1964-1968 they would have been fairly easy to decapitate.  ICBM sites were already on the target list, but there would be the risk of them firing a slew of them at us before we'd take the head off the body.

Theoretically there was crazy idea which entailed detonating some highly powerful thermonuclear weapons a couple hundred miles above the Earth at key latitudes so as to form powerful radiation belts that would destroy some ballistic missiles on their way in.  It could also be used to screw with the Russian's radar and electronics as well to boot.

Therefore, you're chasing a chimera in order to make it possible for you to wage aggressive war, which is accepted as being morally wrong by most participants.

On paper, yes.

This is what was wrong with Reagan's Star Wars Initiative.  He believed it was being done to protect the USA from a pre-emptive, surprise attack by the fUSSR.  The fUSSR believed it was being done to allow the USA to mount a pre-emptive, surprise attack on the fUSSR.

Yeah, that wasn't very smart.

That the US was basing its decision to undertake this initiative on the faulty perception that the fUSSR was already undertaking it's own Star Wars

They had expressed an interest in space-based weapons starting with FOBS, then later had looked into other ideas.  It was put into high gear though by Reagan's behavior and they actually created a space-based laser called Polyus which fortunately did not succeed to get into space (somehow it ended up donkey-backwards and broke up)

[McColm]

I don't know if the North American NA-239 has been discussed as an alternative. Even the in-house variant of the North American model XB-70 titled phase 2.5, shows different configuration for the canards and wing.,

[wuzak]

It is not called a "balance" for nothing, its like a set of scales where fear is balanced by value.

I actually do understand the concept: I also understand that people say one thing and do another.  Are you telling me if the US had the means to successfully hit the USSR where it hurt and not got shot back we would have not done it?

I'm sure it would have happened. Practically speaking it could not be done.

How do you defend against a doomsday weapon which is intended to ensure that your decapitation strike fails?   You have to either develop something which destroys the doomsday weapon (Perimeter/Dead Hand) and the command and control system and your enemy's strategic nuclear forces simultaneously or is capable of defeating the overwhelming majority of incoming attacking warheads from their retaliatory strikes.

Prior to 1984 there was no Perimeter or Dead Hand... in 1964-1968 they would have been fairly easy to decapitate.  ICBM sites were already on the target list, but there would be the risk of them firing a slew of them at us before we'd take the head off the body.

ICBM sites may have been on the list. But not all Soviet nuclear weapons were in ICBM sites. Some were on submarines.

Theoretically there was crazy idea which entailed detonating some highly powerful thermonuclear weapons a couple hundred miles above the Earth at key latitudes so as to form powerful radiation belts that would destroy some ballistic missiles on their way in.  It could also be used to screw with the Russian's radar and electronics as well to boot.

It may have been the case that Soviet electronics were less susceptible to emf than those of the west. Not because they were more advanaced, but because they were less advanced.

[pyro-manic]

Are you telling me if the US had the means to successfully hit the USSR where it hurt and not got shot back we would have not done it?

You think that would have been a good idea?

[zenrat]

Do you actually understand the concept of deterrence?

Yes I do, using the threat of (in this case) nuclear force to scare the bejeezus out of your enemy so as to maintain the peace.

Just as a matter of interest, as a communist nation with an official policy of atheism how much Bejesus did the Soviet Union contain?

[McColm]

Well the USAF hasn't kept a clean record for loosing nuclear weapons, some fell off the B-52s whilst others crashed on take off. Officially none of them leaked radiation, but there are a few no go areas on aviation charts and the odd documentary.

[rickshaw]

Rick's Shaw

BUT, as I keep pointing out, Kendra/Robynne you keep trying to introduce systems which increase the level of fear to the point where it becomes so great that they feel they must act in order to prevent your perceived ability to undertake a first-strike against them is removed, by them mounting their own first strike!

I'm aware of this...

But you keep posting replies which suggest you don't understand it!

It is not called a "balance" for nothing, its like a set of scales where fear is balanced by value.

I actually do understand the concept: I also understand that people say one thing and do another.  Are you telling me if the US had the means to successfully hit the USSR where it hurt and not got shot back we would have not done it?

What I tell you is not important.  What the Politburo BELIEVED is more important.   It is their PERCEPTIONS you need to consider.  They perceived a world which was imitable to their existence as a nation and their ideology.  Remember, since the creation of the Soviet Union, they had been attacked by multiple other countries at various times.  One of them had been a massive surprise attack which had nearly destroyed them.

I believe the US was and is capable of considerable restraint, particularly where nuclear weapons are concerned.  It doesn't go out of it's way to attack other nations, particularly those that are capable of inflicting massive damage on it, if they do.   Washington can and is deterred by the dangers that waging aggressive, unprovoked war in the nuclear age could bring to it's citizens and it's industrial base.   That doesn't mean it won't manoeuvre to ensure that it's supremacy isn't threatened and that can sometimes mean confrontation and even attack on smaller, less powerful countries if it feels it is necessary.

Whether the US would have allowed it's desire to remove the fUSSR over-ride it's caution is another matter and the fact there were many in the US establishment who desired that and it was, what's more, openly discussed alarmed the establishment of the fUSSR and stoked their fear of elimination.

How do you defend against a doomsday weapon which is intended to ensure that your decapitation strike fails?   You have to either develop something which destroys the doomsday weapon (Perimeter/Dead Hand) and the command and control system and your enemy's strategic nuclear forces simultaneously or is capable of defeating the overwhelming majority of incoming attacking warheads from their retaliatory strikes.

Prior to 1984 there was no Perimeter or Dead Hand... in 1964-1968 they would have been fairly easy to decapitate.  ICBM sites were already on the target list, but there would be the risk of them firing a slew of them at us before we'd take the head off the body.

Yes but that didn't mean there wasn't the fear of decapitation incapacitating the ability of the fUSSR to retaliate.  Perimeter/Dead Hand did not spring from nowhere.  It was created to assuage that fear.

Theoretically there was crazy idea which entailed detonating some highly powerful thermonuclear weapons a couple hundred miles above the Earth at key latitudes so as to form powerful radiation belts that would destroy some ballistic missiles on their way in.  It could also be used to screw with the Russian's radar and electronics as well to boot.

And contaminate your own nation and eventually the world.

During the days of open air nuclear testing, the world saw a measurable increase in the background level of radiation.  Imagine what would happen after the deliberate detonating of a massive number of warheads in the upper atmosphere.   On the Beach become becomes a real possibility.

Then, the fact that Soviet electronics were far more robust than Western electronics to radiation and EMP might mean this wouldn't work.   If the Soviets believed it was probable that it would cause the detonation of their warheads then they might decide to shield them (which would reduce warhead size considerably).

Therefore, you're chasing a chimera in order to make it possible for you to wage aggressive war, which is accepted as being morally wrong by most participants.

On paper, yes.

And in the hearts and minds of your citizens who refuse to support the waging of aggressive war, which would end up in the genocide of an entire nation...

This is what was wrong with Reagan's Star Wars Initiative.  He believed it was being done to protect the USA from a pre-emptive, surprise attack by the fUSSR.  The fUSSR believed it was being done to allow the USA to mount a pre-emptive, surprise attack on the fUSSR.

Yeah, that wasn't very smart.

But it proves the point - it is all about perceptions, not necessarily reality.  The US used to believe some of the most incredible tosh about the fUSSR, despite it being obviously tosh.  "Bomber Gap", "Missile Gap", "Window of opportunity" ring any bells?

That the US was basing its decision to undertake this initiative on the faulty perception that the fUSSR was already undertaking it's own Star Wars

They had expressed an interest in space-based weapons starting with FOBS, then later had looked into other ideas.  It was put into high gear though by Reagan's behavior and they actually created a space-based laser called Polyus which fortunately did not succeed to get into space (somehow it ended up donkey-backwards and broke up)

FOBS was dead and buried by the time Star Wars came along.  It had been basically eliminated by the SALT II treaty.  It was also an expensive, difficult system and potentially destabilising system so they were quite willing to get rid of it, in preference for simple, massive retaliation utilising MIRVs,  overwhelming any defensive systems (which in turn had been limited by the ABM treaty because of their own destabilising influence).

Polyus was primarily intended as an anti-satellite weapon, not an anti-ICBM weapon (and anyway, was too low powered to work as one).

[rickshaw]

Do you actually understand the concept of deterrence?

Yes I do, using the threat of (in this case) nuclear force to scare the bejeezus out of your enemy so as to maintain the peace.

Just as a matter of interest, as a communist nation with an official policy of atheism how much Bejesus did the Soviet Union contain?

Officially none, obviously.  Unofficially, on the black market?  A lot! 

[Rheged]

Do you actually understand the concept of deterrence?

Yes I do, using the threat of (in this case) nuclear force to scare the bejeezus out of your enemy so as to maintain the peace.

Just as a matter of interest, as a communist nation with an official policy of atheism how much Bejesus did the Soviet Union contain?

Officially none, obviously.  Unofficially, on the black market?  A lot! 

Very true, Zenrat!!!  The end of USSR brought the churches out of hiding.  As far as I can see,  there was a huge quantity of Eastern Orthodox  Bejesus hanging around waiting to manifest itself!

[tahsin]

Well done, A(-). Would have been an A had not the Russians been so tempted to keep the rep of the Sochi Olympics.

(Post refers to the "Regime Change" in the Ukraine.)

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

I'm sure it would have happened.

That's my point...

ICBM sites may have been on the list. But not all Soviet nuclear weapons were in ICBM sites. Some were on submarines.

Good point, did we know where most of their submarines were in the 60's?

It may have been the case that Soviet electronics were less susceptible to emf than those of the west. Not because they were more advanaced, but because they were less advanced.

Possible...


pyro-manic

You think that would have been a good idea?

Truthfully, probably not.


Rick

I never saw "On The Beach"