🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:12:09 AM UTC-4, Jon Elson wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
> > off topic
> > Two page ad by United Aircraft describing new B-52 bomber.
> > 
> > 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=ElYEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=life%20bus&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> AAAnd, they are still flying!

Retired airforce pilots have not spoken well of them--the airframes
are too old.


Anyway, in looking over the above ad, it appears to be a pitch
by a big defense contractor for more military spending, which
of course would benefit the contractor.

In the 1950s, the government spent a ton of money for the Cold
War, building tons of nuclear weapons*, defense radar networks,
and aircraft and submarines.  Extremely expensive.  Kept the
military draft going for years.

Was it all necessary?  Very tough to say.  I can certainly
understand the mindset of the era--the U.S. was caught flatfooted
after Pearl Harbor and didn't want to be in that position again,
quite understandably.  Further, the Soviets under Stalin and
Kruschev were not exactly extending the olive branch and
causing trouble worldwide.


* Nuclear weapons poisoned the atmosphere and ground from 
above-ground testing.  The nuclear plants left behind an
enormous mess of highly toxic radioactive crap, such as the
ongoing big mess in Hanford, WA.  It blows my mind that
they want to _increase_ today's nuclear arsenal--can't we
now already blow up the world many times over?