This is a worthless article.  Yes, the B-52 is old - but it works.  Yes, replacements with different missions for different times have failed, or come and gone.  We&#x27;re about to build the LSB which will try to replace the old plane more directly than those previous programs.  Defense procurement is messed up.   none of this is news.<p>the article is wrong in so many of the pithy little notes that the whole thing comes off as snarky propaganda at best.<p>* the nuclear-powered bomber was never seen as a practical program - just a way-out-there experiment<p>* the B-58 was retired because ICBMs did it&#x27;s job much better as soviet defenses improved<p>* The (x)b-70 did not have highly toxic exhaust - it used regular jet fuel.  author was confused about &#x27;zip fuel&#x27; which could have been used in many planes - but didn&#x27;t go into use.<p>* weighed down by infamy?<p>* like taking a biplane to iraq?  huh?<p>geeze - having gone over this in more depth I think that the author actually has no message at all.  it&#x27;s just a bit of filler, with some 1960&#x27;s antiwar jabs, and an arch tone.