Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-70
Message-ID: <10515@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Oct 89 23:09:37 GMT
References: <10406@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)

In article <10406@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes:
>Remember when this happened, only a few years after a U-2 was shot
>down over the USSR.  That wasn't really supposed to happen, either.
>But Soviet missile progress outstripped U.S. expectations.  It
>probably didn't to make the same mistake in judgement again.

Was the U-2 really shot down? I've heard an alternate theory that the
U-2 had either a mechanical problem/structural failure/etc. Arguments
for the later theory included:
    o	No intelligence on the Soviets having a missle capable of
	downing a U-2.
    o	No other downed U-2s (the US stopped overflights over the
	USSR, but Soviet clients could have probably gotten the
	SAM and had lots of opportunity to use it).

(I know the Soviets claimed to shot the U-2 down, but that makes better
press than saying it fell out of the sky. Probably much more acceptable
to Congress-critters too.).
-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucspt!ius3!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett