posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:26 AM
I'm sorry, but your argument seems to be self contradictory.
The dismantling of SAC was deemed appropriate due to the collapse of the USSR and the reasoning that there was no longer a nuclear threat of that
magnitude that would require the maintenance of a separate command to address it.
Now, according to your reasoning (and perhaps the unwritten reasoning of the USAF press release) that argument is no longer appropriate - without
spelling out just who is now deemed to be as threatening (specifically in a nuclear sense) as the USSR used to be.
Your whole last paragraph is contradictory, in that the the whole scenario of the abolition of SAC was due to the factors you state - that is
conventional bombing should be given equal importance to the nuclear mission and that the way to dual proficiency was through combined commands rather
than specialized ones. After all, the whole SAC experience was one of over-specialization necessitating the parallel existence of TAC to prosecute
conventional warfare. So you have tried to use the reasoning for the demise of SAC as a reason to re-introduce it.
IMHO, the re-establishment of a SAC-like structure has no strategic or even tactical reasoning whatsoever at the moment, especially considering the
system of separate specialized commands was so wasteful of resources and resulted in so much duplication. I really don't believe that we have
returned to the cold war situation that might require that kind of wastefulness
No, it is simply a spin on the fact that without a specialized organization, the USAF is simply unable to keep up the administrative security
necessary for the handling of nuclear materials. You might recall the old adage that when it comes to security, the more people involved the less
likely it will be maintained.
It is NOT a "brilliant new initiative on the part of the USAF with regard to the worldwide maintenance of global security through nuclear
deterrence" - it is simply establishing "an accountable and responsible department" to keep track of the nukes and make sure they don't get lost
or stolen - because the USAF as a whole doesn't appear to be able to do that.
But then nobody would expect the USAF to issue a press release saying 'We are going to group everything nuclear under one office and make that office
holder responsible for them, because otherwise we are likely to lose some of them'
By the same token, it's a bit over the top to interpret the establishment of such an office as the 'triumphant and well-overdue re-establishment of
So I really do question your reasoning (other than in the sense of losing nuclear material) that the nuclear mission 'needs to be addressed' or that
it has 'lost favor and importance'. Does the USAF currently NEED the 'rigorous training, procedures and culture which SAC established'
(especially the 'culture') - an inference that there is somehow something wrong with current training, procedures and culture within the USAF (once
again with the exception of the recently displayed talent for slack handling of nukes) ? Surely such things should be appropriate to the current world
situation, rather than to a past Cold War one.
And in any case the aircraft are not part of the command, only the nukes! As the USAF says, why give up all the gains of the past 15 years ?
The Winged Wombat
[edit on 30/10/08 by The Winged Wombat]