OK, I'll try to break down my stance (again) so it will hopefully be transparent to all.
#1 - I agree with McNamara on the point that new SAM technology meant that the whole reasoning behind the B-70 was obsolete, or at least would be by the time it was operational in regular numbers. A proposed bomber whose entire reason for being is invulnerability to SAM's is nothing more than a money sink if it isn't invulnerable to contemporary SAM's.
#2 - I disagree with McNamara on the point that ICBM's would render strategic bombers obsolete. On this point, I mostly agree with Seafort in saying that there are many things a strategic bomber can do that an ICBM can't, though I wouldn't go so far as saying that a strong bomber corps would obviate the need for a missile arsenal.
I don't think I can say it any plainer. As to the rest:
Captain Seafort wrote:As we've already been over, the B-70 flew higher and at least as fast as the Blackbird (both Mach 3+).
"As we've already been over" here, apparently, means, "Seafort said so, therefore it must be so." If you have figures for production models comparing the top end and operational ceiling of the B-70 and the SR-71, I'd love to be shown (whether I'm right or wrong.) If not, then I just can't accept on faith that the B-70 - which was designed to just
make Mach 3 - had a better operational top end than the SR-71 which regularly
flew at more than Mach 3.
I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't have B&W figures for the ceiling of SAM's of the period, but I can tell you for sure that things with which you are familiar - e.g., the S-75, Bristol Bloodhound, and the Sea Slug - made high-altitude evasion of SAM's dubious enough to completely change the design aesthetic of combat aircraft; i.e., necessitating the advent of aircraft optimized for low-altitude operations. As I said, I don't have the exact figures; but in the absence of ANY evidence for the former point, the circumstantial evidence for the latter point seems to carry the weight.
Captain Seafort wrote:That was in response to your clarification of your reasoning, not that I agreed with said claim.
Indeed, which left me scratching my head as to why you later seemed not to have understood the reasoning which I so clarified.