Again, I would remind you, the heart of the original discussion, Prompt Global Strike, is a tactical weapon. It is not a strategic weapon (nuclear) and it is not a weapon of strategic defense. (ABM, SDI, .etc)

I understand your concern, that it might be misinterpreted as such, and just so we don’t get confused on that issue, I’ll repeat this portion of my post;

“I hear you, and certainly, nobody who lived through the constant threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, ever wants to return to those days.

A good indication of that, is seen in the most recent Bush administration’s decision to cancel a Prompt Global Strike (PGS) weapon, that used the 1st and 2nd stage SRB’s from an ICBM.

They did this purely out of concerns, such a PGS launch could be mistaken for a Strategic Nuclear Strike.

That was the right thing to do, it listened to, and addressed the protests of the Russians, and should remind both of us, things really are very different than they were during the Cold War.”

Not exactly Dr. Strangelove.

I absolutely take you at your word, regarding your defense work, and I enjoy reading your posts very much. Though not a historian, (hobbyist is more like it) I love military history, especially, WWII, and the Cold War.

Those unfamiliar with military contingency planning, are sometimes shocked and outraged at planning documents detailing the invasion of Canada, or attacks on otherwise friendly nations. But these, and countless thousands of other war fighting plans are necessary tools employed by the militaries of all nations.

I’m not surprised, that at the height of the Cold War, Strategic planners would pull out all stops, and examine every possible scenario, including First Strike, and such an unconventional use of SLBM’s. (as you describe)

I’m also fairly comfortable in assuming you understand the very nature of the SLBM leg of the Triad, was to deter Soviet strategic planners from ever dreaming they could pull off a First Strike. Land based silos can be targeted, penetration bombers can be mitigated. Ohio Class SSBN’s?

Most likely not

I don’t want to mischaracterize your position, but after reading your last two posts, (‘Yo,…Ainz’ and ‘Some background’) you sum up your view of the United States motivations during the Cold War;

“…we really didn’t want to conquer the world, we just needed to keep our defense contractors busy building new, expensive weapons. It was Congressional and corporate inertia and greed, not empire-building megalomania.”

I have some friends, good friends, who use almost the same language to describe the motivation for the United States involvement in WWII,…and South East Asia.

I understand that political point of view. I don’t share it, but I understand it.

I look forward to your future posts.