‘Do We Really Need the B-2?’
Your rather long editorial with regard to the B-2 was rather incomplete.
Until we devise something other than war to settle differences, we obviously must be prepared. Since in case of conflict we do not get the choice of weapons, we must be flexible. This means that for now we probably must have bombers--the B-2 is it. Yes, we have the great B-52, the newest of which is over 30 years old. We have fewer than 100 B-1’s. As these planes are eliminated through accident and wear, we have no replacements.
Many years are required for the construction of a new bomber--and we would not have that luxury. Yes, they are expensive, but they also are apparently highly developed and can be expected to be improved as time goes on. Personally, I do not relish the thought of our young people becoming involved in any war, but if they do, I prefer that they have the best of everything.
Let us build these bombers and let us profit from the expertise their building will develop. As they are being built, for once, let us closely monitor this manufacturer to assure that the usual scandals have no chance to develop.
WALTER C. MILES
Valencia
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
