Define "First Strike". If you are talking "preemptive launch", we didn't. If we were, there would have been no need for ballistic missile subs. Ballistic missile launched from surface ships would have been more than good enough.
If you are talking "first salvo", we spent so much in a policy called Mutually Assured Descruction, or MAD. The idea being that our retalitory first salvo would be so overwhelming that the USSR could have gained nothing in the exchange. The reason the USSR spent so much money was because they didn't believe we wouldn't launch first, and therefore built up to similar MAD levels. On 4/18/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then why did we spend so much time and money placing weapons in locations > where the only option for their use would have been first strike? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:38 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) > > > > It was seldom thought that the US would launch a preemptive strike > > against the USSR (although many script writers were employed thinking > > about it). It was just about inconceivable that the US would EVER > > launch a preemptive strike. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204550 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
