that's freakin awesome, bless your grandfather

Yep. And we're STILL stuck using 1960's era ICBM technology with the Minuteman III, until the long awaited Sentinel finally comes into service. Even still, the Peacekeeper was more powerful than even the mighty Sentinel will be.

I disagree. It was much smarter to focus on submarine launched missiles which are much more survivable.

@@daikucoffee5316 While I agree SLBMs can often be the most survivable of the triad in a lot of situations depending on the sub location, I don't see any good reason why we couldn't continue with the Peacekeeper project in tandem with the Trident program. Peacekeeper was under Boeing, and Trident under Lockheed, so it's not like it's an issue of too much work being placed on a single contractor. Also, if a vulnerability were found on our ballistic sub fleet and were exploited by the enemy in the way of a strike, an EMP, or some other way way of disabling our use of SLBMs, then it would be imperative that our silos stay capable of launching ICBMs, and our B-2s and soon to be B-21s be able to strike from the air. The survivability of each of the nuclear triad have their own pros and cons. All three are highly survivable given the lack of intercepting ability from Russia/China, not to mention the use of decoy MIRVs and other tactics etc etc.

​@@Sentinel_ICBM No, Igm 35 will not be different than the existing minuteman...it will have only one warhead and similar payload capacity to the minuteman, in contrast to that russian satan 2 have 10 ton payload and 24 glide vehicles..now peacekeeper is most needed than ever!

​@@daikucoffee5316 no..slbms don't have the payload capacity and accuracy like icbms...but yeah icbms are more vulnerable

I know

Really stupid on our part.

Jews in Washington did this.

Very sad to hear of Bruce's passing. God speed, sir.

Give em a break bro it was the late 20th century they didn't have Microphones good enough that you could here a man 2 miles away.

It is from 1980’s.