Was he really that bad?

File: antimonitoring.jpg (194KB, 493x693px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 493x693px

I do not know but I would like to learn more about him.

One of the greatest presidents of US

>>2705802
Bad according to what standard? That depends entirely on by what criteria you judge a president, and by what your political beliefs are.

>>2705802
he's histories greatest monster!

>>2705802
A good man but not a great president.

>>2705802
>shit domestic policy
>even shittier foreign policy
Yep. Liberals like to point to him and say how things could have been, but putting on a sweater doesn't fix the malaise. It only makes it worse, even if things on paper are better. Shunning your closest allies because they sometimes do shady things doesn't make them change their point of view. They just look to the other side as a stop gap until you leave office.

I find it funny that Carter is viewed as a spineless hippie when he pulled the US out of detente, boycotted the Olympics, started arming the mujihadeen and gave Iraq the green light to invade Iran.

>>2706670
>is viewed as a spineless hippie
Because all of that had fewer teeth than Versailles or any Deep Concern.

>>2705802
The economy was shit under him.

>>2706678
But had exactly as many teeth as Reagan's policies, which are lauded

>>2705817

being a good guy =/= bieng a good prez

>>2706685
>But had exactly as many teeth as Reagan's policies
Except that's wrong. Funding to the Mujahideen went up significantly under Reagan. Detente may have ended under Carter, but the Soviets didn't take it seriously until Reagan and this is reflected in their military spending. I'm also certain that Iran giving up the hostages literally right before Reagan was inaugurated meant it was Jimmy Carter that was the tough bastard who got them to give the hostages up, right? No one gave a fuck about Carter. When he shunned Argentina and sanctioned the Soviets, they just traded with each other as a big fuck you and he sat there and took it. Let's face it, Carter was all bark and no bite. Whereas other states were very fucking afraid of Reagan because they knew that he would (and did) bite.

File: Jimmy_Carter.jpg (734KB, 2777x4109px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 2777x4109px

>>2705802

Carter fell into a weird hole of being too conservative for Democrats to like him and simultaneously too liberal for Republicans to like him. And Republicans were very effective at attacking his perceived weaknesses, especially on foreign policy. For just one example, Carter had the B-1 supersonic bomber program cancelled in favor of the B-2 stealth bomber program. Republicans attacked him for cancelling the B-1, and Carter couldn't explain why he had done it because the B-2 was still classified. Eventually Carter became so frustrated that he declassified the B-2 project just so he could publicly explain why he'd cancelled the B-1. And then Republicans attacked him for declassifying the B-2 project.

The real death blow was Eagle Claw, though. It wasn't his fault, but it was still a humiliating defeat, and the guy on top always absorbs the blame. The failure to retrieve American hostages from Iran sealed Carter's fate and guaranteed that he would not be re-elected.

>>2705802
fucker gave up panama, why would you give up the thing that makes shipping between two oceans feasible .

File: Newsweek cover, Oct 19 1987.jpg (144KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 600x800px

>>2706670

All the American voter cares about is how loud the president can woof.

>>2706737
You're thinking of the F-117, not the B-2.

>>2706808
He means the B-2. The F-117 had no effect on the B-1 program.

no. It's all memes from the republicans.

Carter actually defeated the Soviet Union and created the prosperity of the 80s and 90s.

Reagan just stood around while pumping money into the military industrial complex and putting the US onto the patch of never ending debt.

>>2706827
There's a lot of delusion in this post.

>>2706834

He's basically right, though. "Reagan killed the USSR" is a Republican meme. The USSR wasn't killed by any external force. They feel apart on their own.

>>2706875
Their military spending nearly tripled under the Reagan presidency, something they couldn't afford (particularly during the era of mass shortages). Reagan gets far more credit than Carter and John Paul II gets more credit than both. Giving Carter credit for anything regarding the Soviet Union is a blatant lie. Hell, his own fucking attempt at sanctioning them was a massive failure.

>>2706816
So I do a little digging

>When Carter took office in 1977 he ordered a review of the entire program. By this point the projected cost of the program had risen to over $100 million per aircraft, although this was lifetime cost over 20 years. He was informed of the relatively new work on stealth aircraft that had started in 1975, and he decided that this was a better avenue of approach than the B-1.
>On 30 June 1977, Carter announced that the B-1A would be canceled in favor of ICBMs, SLBMs, and a fleet of modernized B-52s armed with ALCMs.[35] Carter called it "one of the most difficult decisions that I've made since I've been in office." No mention of the stealth work was made public with the program being top secret, but today it is known that in early 1978 he authorized the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project, which eventually led to the B-2 Spirit.[48]

The B-2 didn't enter service until 1997 though.

The F-117 entered service in 1983

>>2706890
Meanwhile in a reality where you don't cherry pick what you don't want to hear:

>By 1976, these programs progressed to where a long-range strategic stealth bomber appeared viable. President Carter was aware of these developments during 1977, and it appears to have been one of the major reasons the B-1 was canceled.[13] Further studies were ordered in early 1978, by which point the Have Blue platform had flown and proven the concepts. During the 1980 presidential election campaign in 1979, Ronald Reagan repeatedly stated that Carter was weak on defense, and used the B-1 as a prime example. In return, on 22 August 1980, the Carter administration publicly disclosed that the United States Department of Defense (DoD) was working to develop stealth aircraft, including a bomber.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#ATB_program

>>2706897
I don't know if you know this, but the F designation on the F-117 was a funding thing, the F-117 has no air to air capabilities.

The F-117 was the archetypal stealth bomber.

>>2706906
I don't know if you know this, but the F-117 was a black project whereas the B-2 was not. Carter would not have brought up the F-117 even in mention.

>>2706909
>The Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) program began in 1979.[15] Full development of the black project followed, and was funded under the code name "Aurora".[16]

>For the manufacturing, a former Ford automobile assembly plant in Pico Rivera, California, was acquired and heavily rebuilt; the plant's employees were sworn to complete secrecy regarding their work. To avoid the possibility of suspicion, components were typically purchased through front companies, military officials would visit out of uniform, and staff members were routinely subjected to polygraph examinations. The secrecy extended so far that access to nearly all information on the program by both Government Accountability Office (GAO) and virtually all members of Congress itself was severely limited until the mid-1980s.[25] Northrop (now Northrop Grumman) was the B-2's prime contractor; major subcontractors included Boeing, Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon), GE, and Vought Aircraft.[7]

>A procurement of 132 aircraft was planned in the mid-1980s

I'm not seeing the part where the B-2 got declassified. If I'm reading this shit right, all Carter did was say "we're working on a stealth bomber" which would apply to both programs.

And there was little to no chance of the B-2 being available by the end of Carter's second term, let alone in time to replace the cancelled B-1 fleet, on the other hand the F-117 took its first flight in 1981.

>>2706935
There was no chance of a B-1 flight either you fucking mook. That doesn't mean it wasn't cancelled because of the B-2, like all signs seem to point to.

>>2706949
>There was no chance of a B-1 flight either you fucking mook

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The B-1 was in service. This is what I'm saying, it doesn't make sense to cancel an aircraft that's already in service if the replacement is still 20 years away from fruition.

Of course, he didn't know it'd be 20 years, but even at the time 10 years would have been a realistic estimate.

>>2706955
>introduction 1986
Having a first flight and being ready for production are two completely different things. You don't know what you're talking about. Go away.

>>2706959
The F-117 entered service in 1983.

The B-2 entered service in 1997.

Which one of these would you use to replace an aircraft if you were starting in 1977?

>>2706963
How about not cancelling an aircraft in 1977 so it will be ready before 1983? You know, like the B-1 would have been.

>>2706968
>>2706963
Also the F-117 and the B-1 fit different roles. Seriously go away.

>>2706968
Well, because ALCM spam > nape of the earth manned bombers, and Have Blue was already flying when Carter pulled the plug on the Lancer program.

>>2706975
See >>2706971
You read a Wiki article and think you're an expert now despite your own articles show the military scratching their head at the decision. Seriously, go away.

>>2706971
The F-117 was literally only used for strategic interdiction though.

It has the exact same job as the B-1, it's just way better at it.

RAND was predicting 60% losses per sortie for B-1 strikes against Iraqi IADS during the Gulf War, compared to 5-10% for F-117s.

It turned out the F-117 was even better than that and it took zero losses in the entire conflict.

>>2706981
I don't think you fully grasp how obsessed I am with aerospace.

I have copies of Skunk Works and Sled Driver on the bookshelf behind me.

The B-2 is my planefu.

>>2706760
American votes care more about the President's image. Blame Bill Clinton for destroying the idea of Wartime President looking tough against America's enemies and creating a new image of President Working Stiff who's just like us.

>>2706992
Sure, you do. Even if you did, this certainly makes you more qualified than DARPA or SAC.

>>2707014
Well, the concept of using VLO bombers and cruise missiles as a way to defeat IADS certainly caught on.

The US hasn't introduced any non-VLO bombers, but it liked the F-117 and B-2 enough to shell out for the F-22 and F-35, and the Tomahawk, AGM-129 and AGM-86.

Look-down shoot-down radar exists. Nape of the earth, manned bombing missions don't work any more, and they haven't worked since the 70s.

Gotta lower that RCS my boy.

>>2707039
>Nape of the earth, manned bombing missions don't work any more, and they haven't worked since the 70s.
Tell that to the B-1 which continues to fly sorties to this day.

>>2707046
If you see a B-1 flying nape of the earth to attack an IADS, please let me know, so I can write my senator and complain.

The B-52 and B-1 are bomb trucks now, not what you use to attack enemies with actual SAM systems.

That's what JSOW, JASSM Tomahawks, F-35s, B-2s, and F-22s are for.

The B-1 Lancer is to aerospace what the M3 Grease Gun was to small arms in the 70s and 80s, just good enough to keep in the inventory, nowhere near adequate enough for front-line service.

>>2707046
Yeah against goat herders with AK's maybe.

My Grandpa said that he's an alright person, but lacked charisma and leadership skills, making him a bad President in his eyes.