<p>
</p>
<p>OH, yeah. I was there in the midst of it. It was horrible, and we’re STILL paying. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Carriers are more vulnerable (since they can sink and since you have to move them closer to the enemy) than air bases in friendly countries or the United States.</p>
<p>2) Strategic bombers have longer range, bigger payloads, and are stealthier than anything you can put on a carrier.</p>
<p>3) While SLBM’s are perhaps the most secure arm of the nuclear triad, once they launch, there is no recalling them. Also, you can’t really do a single or limited strike with them without alerting the rest of the world. A B-2 can sneak in and deliver its warheads, and no one will ever know what’s happening until the mushrooms have sprouted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Japan surrendered after they realized they would be vaporized if they didn’t. It worked.</p>
<p>2) In Korea, we were able to push them all the way back to China before China sent a few million men over the border. We could have kept going, but that would very likely have resulted in a nuclear war.</p>
<p>3) In Vietnam, strategic bombing forced the Vietnamese back to the negotiating table because they knew we COULD vaporize them. (Funny what happens when you fight a war like you MEAN IT, eh?)</p>
<p>4) In Iraq, the enemy forces have been defeated. What we are fighting now (and increasingly successfully, judging from the noticeable absence of “OMG! WE’RE LOSING!” stories being posted here lately) is a proxy war fought through terrorism. You can’t fight a war like that with strategic bombers unless, of course, you’d like us to fly into Iran and pave it over (no problem, as far as I’m concerned).</p>
<p>This guy is clueless. He has NO IDEA what he’s talking about.</p>