If that math was any fuzzier you could sell it as a children's toy. Without knowing anything about the costs of a system that could cost anywhere between $50 and $500 billion to develop and deploy, you casually throw off a statement like 'won back its cost in a week's worth of sorties' ..... could you possibly engage in a higher level of hyperbolic conjecture?You'll have to replace those missiles for our deterrent and for many follow-up strikes to replace the sorties that the canceled bomber could have been making (and even at the absurd price of the B-2, would've won back its cost v. this system in a week's worth of sorties).
Here's the fact -- we're committed to spending billions on Trident missile refits and keeping the production line open until amost 2020. Here's the conjecture -- developing a conventional capacity for those missiles we're already buying is simply a matter of trying to get more bang for our buck. We're spending billions on missiles we pray we're never going to use, so the idea that they might spend a billion or two in a year when they actually want to fire some of them without nuking somebody doesn't seem particularly farfetched.
I am officially done zombifying this dead horse, the discussion is producing nothing but inexplicably angry conjecture.
