Damn. Not what I wanted to submit. Ah well, let is stand aside from “The weapon is evolutionary and falls easily with current abilities of the US and other nations”
Which should read “ The platform combines aspects of both the ICBM and strategic bomber (range, speed, payload, control) thereby reducing costs (monetary and political) and maintaining the ability to project force around the globe. These weapon types are not resticted to US development only as the UK UAV development site shows other nations opting for the same capability.
Zenster you’re right of course. The Danes suppressed the Swedish desire for autonomy.
The elephant tends to be benign but is large and tends to underestimate its impact on the rest of us. Still, I’ve now got 2 brothers-in-law down your way so I have to be nice right?
As we seem to be firmly entrenched in our respective camps, I fear that further debate will not lead to agreement, but rather deepen the rift that seems to have unfortunately appeared 'twixt Grey, Zenster & myself.
May I say that I accept your point as a valid one, simply not one that I would subscribe to without serious demonstration of the US’s peaceful intentions.
