bluecrew wrote:TWA772LR wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:How can they prevent the submarines from firing the "reply"? I don't see first strike fundamentally enabled by these. What brings the B-21 to the table that could not be covered by western ICBMs and SLBMs?
For one, bombers can be recalled. Ballistic missiles can't.
And for a true nuclear first strike out even a retaliatory strike, all parts of the triad will be utilized. As for a conventional war, that just speaks for itself.
What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with recall.
The issue is you're claiming hundreds of stealth super bombers will be able to demolish anything from the sky constantly, day in day out. You're not taking into account maintenance, crews, facilities, etc., the aircraft's actual combat performance, or most importantly, the fact that maybe 100 will come. The Air Force is asking for 150. That's not hundreds.
With those numbers, if you're dropping conventional munitions, you're not making a worldwide impact. If nuclear... well... there are bigger issues than the stealth aircraft making it to the payload deployment point. To be honest I think the B-52s could still first strike Russia with far less than expected casualties, mainly because of the appalling lack of preparedness exhibited by the Ukraine War.
So if recall isn't one of the capabilities of a bomber vs a missile, then why aren't the world's nuclear forces all ballistic missiles?
Where did I say "hundreds"?
You do know a nuclear war wouldn't be like WW2 with 300+ bombers in formation wiping out a city all at once, right?
We know nothing of this aircrafts combat performance considering it hasn't even rolled out yet. The whole concept of a nuclear bomber is to offer surgical precision nuclear strikes. You don't get that with a ballistic missiles which would be more adept at wiping out a city or large military/industrial site.
I asked on here a while back why ICBMs aren't used with conventional warheads. The consensus was return on investment. With how experience it is to maintain/use an ICBM, the nuclear warhead would be the only true way of achieving any kind of accuracy.
And in the age of carrier-killing hypersonic weapons, this is where the B21 comes in handy. A first strike is to render the enemy's ability to wage war and respond ineffective. The US is working on precision hypersonic weapons for this reason, to surgically take out nuclear weapons and their infrastructure on ways that an ICBM couldn't, or would just be overkill. And you can't tell me the US isn't exploring nuclear hypersonic weapons. A stealth platform that wouldn't be detected until it's weapon is launched, if at all, is much more preferable for a first strike than a ballistic missile that is detected by a satellite as soon as it launches.
No one said the B52 wouldn't be capable of a first strike. Cruise missiles are a real thing. But if you're going up against an adversary like China, stealth is the preferred method of actually hitting targets much more inland. Russia can be pretty much ruled out as a near-peer adversary at this point. Yeah they have the most nuclear warheads of any country, but who knows how many are in any kind of working order, not to mention the delivery and guidance systems. Not something I want to find out though, that's where the world just watches them implode.
