Can somebody explain to me the point of the air leg of the nuclear triad?

Can somebody explain to me the point of the air leg of the nuclear triad? Is it just a meme to keep air force pilots in the nuclear game or for muh AIR LAND SEA? bombers are the least survivable and the least responsive option. why do the US keep these around for nuclear deterrence?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody is detecting all the B2 bombers and eliminating them during a first strike.
    If the enemy finds a technology that reliably let's them track and follow your subs without being detected then all they gotta do is be sure their first strike hits your silos.
    Bombers just add to the technical challenge to your first strike.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine you're the toilet cleaning crew (be real, YWNB a pilot) on a B-52 on your way to Beijing after the first wave of ICBMs have exploded. As you look out the toilet window, mushroom clouds are booming underneath. You know there's no more home to return to but the captain is resolute in her mission. What will you do after the payload was dropped?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You know there's no more home to return to but the captain is resolute in her mission. What will you do after the payload was dropped?
        i would drop my payload on the captain ofc

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Land in China and try to become a Wasteland warlord.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this actually brings up something I've always wondered. What, if any, was the official military plan for what to do after the initial nuclear exchange is over? Do the pilots go out on their bombing mission and then go back to base? Do they leave assuming they'll never return, and effectively accept they are kamikazes? Do the surviving armed forces plan on mounting an invasion? Every theory for WW3 goes up to nuclear exchange and stops there, but surely the army had to have SOME kind of contingency plan beyond "and then nuclear war happens and we all die".

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bombers have alternate landing sites planned out, sometimes they would be civilian airports but most often they were older, low target priority bases or friendly bases.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There were lots of contingency plans for various situations. There were separate departments full of people working a full time job planning around this kind of stuff. The military would generally proceed with finishing off the enemy, securing the important objectives and switching to disaster relief if necessary.

          For non-military this is the responsibility of the civil defense which has been utterly neglected in the US and the western world because of the defeatism of the general public and politicians and misconceptions about nuclear war, reinforced by very active soviet propaganda that was very keen on weakening it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >defeatism of the general public and politicians and misconceptions about nuclear war, reinforced by very active soviet propaganda that was very keen on weakening it.
            god fricking tell me about it
            the truth is that although yes, if you're directly in the center of a major city or just unlucky, a countervalue exchange would kill you, nuclear war is absolutely survivable and a country trained to react to it could expect to recover in a matter of years depending on the severity of the strike. A counterforce scenario leaves the vast majority of the population still alive, and countervalue would leave at least half still alive, after the detonations. Whether the remainder live or die is purely up to how prepared the country is, and those lives are the reason for which nuclear preparedness is so fricking important. Yet everyone I know seems persuaded that nuclear war is just game over, everybody dead, no use in trying just sit down and die like a b***h. Fricking hell, I live in London for god's sake and even I have a contingency plan for myself and my family.

            I'm not saying a nuclear war is anything anyone should want, its' an abomination of death and suffering, but if it's about saving lives then we have to be prepared.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              oh and this is without even mentioning the abominable horseshit which is cold war predictions on nuclear winter and radiation

              The truth is radiation will absolutely be an issue for the first week but that's it; as for nuclear winter, the theory has been proven completely false multiple times - the scientists who came up with it themselves knew it was false but admitted they propagated it in order to deter the (very real) possibility of nuclear war via fearmongering, which I can admittedly sympathise with.

              The long-term environmental impact of a nuclear war would actually be positive, as the amount of people it would kill would eradicate global warming lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are a liar' a very bad liar!
                actually "More than 2 billion people could die from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia"
                https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0

                and this just because of climate effects of a nuclear war, btw, most starvation victims would be in Russia, Middle East and Africa, if you live there keep in mind even a small nuclear war you are not even involved in will likely starve you to death

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > More than 2 billion people could die from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan
                “People” is a strong word

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >up to 5 billion people would die
                >most starvation victims would be in Russia, Middle East and Africa
                I see this as an absolute win.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Alan Robock
                of fricking course

                he's a hack who makes all sorts of ridiculous and unscientific assumptions specifically to maximize the LONG discredited idea of nuclear winter. his climate models of choice were outdated in the 1990s (anything newer and more accurate isn't pessimistic enough for him), his modeling of fires is dubious at best (tends to assume enormous and homogenous and wholly combusted fuel surfaces covering the surface), and his climate modeling was empirically disproved by the lack of climate impact from the Australian wildfires - which were 1/5 of the total amount of stratospheric combustion products described in that exact paper you linked and had no measurable impact on global climate.

                Alan Robock's name shows up on EVERY SINGLE MODERN NUCLEAR WINTER PAPER I HAVE EVER SEEN. the man is on a fricking crusade to preserve, in the face of contradictory empirical evidence, the mythology of nuclear winter. my only explanation is he's given himself a goddamn messiah complex over an outdated and unscientific theory because he thinks his bullshit is preventing nuclear war (which is self-important delusion).

                i knew his name would be in the author list without even opening it (but i still checked of course, he's the second name there), because he shows up in "nuclear apocalypse doomer" reporting with UNNERVING reliability.

                he also very likely attempted to edit his own wikipedia page to make himself look better, which is always a (fricking hilariously pathetic) red flag.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well, at this point he's 40 years into his theory so he has a lot on the line - all of it funded by the US government as well

                are there any papers which have strongly critiqued his findings?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >most starvation victims would be in Russia, Middle East and Africa
                you'd sold me
                when do we launch?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >More than 2 billion people could die from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan
                We gotta get those numbers up!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Countervalue was always more of a threat to Russia than the US because like 70% of Russians live in 5 cities. America not only has half its population not live in cities at all, but the ones that do are spread out among like 30 cities and it's hard to get all of them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Arguably there's relatively little difference in an American counterforce strike vs. a countervalue strike as far as Russian leadership is concerned. There are so many counterforce targets in Moscow and Petersburg that both cities would be largely glassed as collateral damage... and those are the only two cities that Russian leadership *truly* cares about, beyond all others.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                they care about Vladivostok too, a bit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >. There were separate departments full of people working a full time job
            another pointless goobermint money waster job. in a full nuclear exchange there will be so much fire that the sky will be blotted out and everybody in the northern hemisphere will starve to death.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The 13% will loot the cities as there own form of civil defence.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          literally "land anywhere you can, get on the radio and take orders from the highest ranking guy still alive"

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Brits have something they call letters of last resort. Each incoming prime minister writes identical sealed letters which are given to the commanders of the Royal Navy's ballistic missile subs. They contain the orders the sub captain is to follow if nuclear war breaks out and they can't get in contact with either military command or the civil government. The contents of the letters have never been revealed, but the MoD has said examples might be orders to launch a retaliatory attack, or to refrain from launching a retaliatory attack, or for the captain to use their own judgement, etc. But the interesting hypothetical example was that if a Royal Navy captain couldn't get in contact with the authorities in Britain, their orders would be to place themselves under the command of an allied nation such as Australia or the United States.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Apparently the dry lake beds were one such landing sites on homeland if home base is destroyed and they were able to return.

          But flying to friendly nations like SK, Japan, Pakistan or mid-east countries is one of their options.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >"and then nuclear war happens and we all die".
          Grandfather was a pilot out of Offutt from '59 to '68. Yes, this was basically the idea. Especially for that base.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this actually brings up something I've always wondered. What, if any, was the official military plan for what to do after the initial nuclear exchange is over? Do the pilots go out on their bombing mission and then go back to base? Do they leave assuming they'll never return, and effectively accept they are kamikazes? Do the surviving armed forces plan on mounting an invasion? Every theory for WW3 goes up to nuclear exchange and stops there, but surely the army had to have SOME kind of contingency plan beyond "and then nuclear war happens and we all die".

        RAF V-Force crews were instructed to bailout over Siberia and marry local girls.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but the captain is resolute in her mission.
        >her
        Get in one last frick before I die

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bend the captain over and frick her raw to show her who's nr 1 around here.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Declare marital law and begin repopulating the earth with her via rape

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For the record, the BUFF uses a piss jug like device that gets swapped out by the ground crew. But, yeah…

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Subs are for avoiding detection, not b-52s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I didnt mention b52s

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The air leg is (or atleast was) the only part of the triad capable of rapid retargeting and limited response. ICBMs and SLBMs are the strategic backbone, but jet planes with variable yield bombs are very flexible.

    Then there's battlefield nuclear use, and since nuclear artillery doesn't exist anymore it's up to the planes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but battlefield nukes are worthless because they are escalation prone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Depends, limited or "tactical" nuclear war might not exist but the battlefield targets definitely exist. Even after DC, Moscow, Beijing and Jerusalem are reduced to ash there's still a lot of angry men and vehicles left to kill on the frontlines.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >there's still a lot of angry men and vehicles left to kill on the frontlines.
          and 2 days later they all starve to death

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Paid nuclear Boogeyman spreader

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >escalation prone
        Not really, nuclear weapons aren't deadly by themselves but the delivery method IS prone to escalation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but battlefield nukes are worthless

        Yes, they are. They're legitimately almost worthless in most situations.

        >because they are escalation prone.

        That's not why.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        oh really?
        enlighten us how a tactical nuke is somehow more escalatory than a city-killer

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ok moron-anon. when youre nuking cities, youre already at the top of the escalation ladder, so it's not possible to escalate.

          ok?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >just nuking the cities
            >top of the escalation ladder
            Boy are you in for a surprise.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            even if this is true (it isn't), you're telling me you like to start climbing the ladder at the top?
            fricking idiot

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >nuclear artillery doesn't exist anymore
      Stupid Reagan and his stupid INF treaty. Can't have shit in Detroit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Did we used to have mobile nuclear ssm launchers? Cuz that would be based.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Look up "Davy Crocket gun". It was small enough to mount on the back of a jeep and you could fire little 1kT nukes from it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          scads
          Tomahawk 109Gs, Lance, Pershing

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >air
    Destruction of deep bunkers or enemy cities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      can be done by ICBMs

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Can somebody explain to me the point of the air leg of the nuclear triad?

    Ever heard of air launched missiles and cruise missiles?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and how are they better than ICBMs?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        More accurate and can be retargeted as needed, ICBM's and SLBM's are also one time use systems that can't be postured for deterrence, something many forget about.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >More accurate
          irrelevant
          >retargeted as needed
          that's just a cope version of being not as responsive
          > ICBM's and SLBM's are also one time use systems that can't be postured for deterrence
          what?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >irrelevant
            Yes it is. You have to be pretty accurate to neutralise silos for example.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >irrelevant
            >he thinks nuclear weapons can destroy anything
            Lol, lamo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            found the glue eater
            >not as responsive
            because a bomber absolutely cannot be rerouted midflight where an ICBM can amirite
            >what?
            you can launch a bomber armed with a nuke to fly ostentatiously near the enemy airspace to show that you mean business, and then land with that nuke unexpended
            try doing that with an ICBM

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >because a bomber absolutely cannot be rerouted midflight where an ICBM can amirite
              yes if you take 12 hours to cruise to your target there's 12 hours worth of time to reconsider
              but if you have ICBMs you can also just wait 12 hours before deciding to launch. it's the same thing. only morons fall for the "reroute" meme

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >just wait 12 hours before deciding to launch
                for most missions planning time is longer than flight time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can launch a bomber as a warning but recall it before it crosses into enemy air space. Good luck trying to brandish an ICBM.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they require different interception strategy's
        the cruse missile may be able to fly nap of the earth to evade detection, probably easier to intercept the launch platform than the missile itself
        ICBM depends on a ballistic arc to achieve long range strikes, and is easiest to intercept either during launch or at apogie

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why they are used for warning strikes of course.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the french has a different nuke doctrine so not comparable to the US

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's different BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >nuking as warning
      This doctrine doesn't seem very smart

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I must admit it is not smart.
        But it is like eating frogs or snails, we dot it because it's fun and shameful at the same time.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the US case, there are hundreds of nuclear capable stealth aircraft. It would be pretty difficult to withstand atomic SEAD at that scale.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how come nobody does ALBMs anymore?

    you got ICBMs for land, SLBMs for sea, but no ALBMs for air?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Russia has the Kinzhal

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear bombs are the cheapest, most simple way to maintan a large arsenal of nuclear weapons that is also minimally bound by strategic limitations and treaties as each bomber counts as one strategic warhead.

        Missiles have better readiness but are single use and would likely be used up in the immediate strategic exchange, while the bombers could be reloaded and used many times.

        Stealth bombers are a completely different kind of beast and are incredibly capable first strike weapons that are impervious to the typical early warning systems.

        Ballistic missiles are all about speed and altitude which are tied to size, which is a problem for aircraft. Small ballistic missiles are much easier targets than big ones like ICBMs so they have a lot of disadvantages compared to cruise missiles.

        I mean surely there's an ICBM that's just small and light enough to fit on a strategic bomber without too much of a compromise on range.
        like a modernized Midgetman ICBM.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear bombs are the cheapest, most simple way to maintan a large arsenal of nuclear weapons that is also minimally bound by strategic limitations and treaties as each bomber counts as one strategic warhead.

      Missiles have better readiness but are single use and would likely be used up in the immediate strategic exchange, while the bombers could be reloaded and used many times.

      Stealth bombers are a completely different kind of beast and are incredibly capable first strike weapons that are impervious to the typical early warning systems.

      Ballistic missiles are all about speed and altitude which are tied to size, which is a problem for aircraft. Small ballistic missiles are much easier targets than big ones like ICBMs so they have a lot of disadvantages compared to cruise missiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Missiles have better readiness but are single use and would likely be used up in the immediate strategic exchange, while the bombers could be reloaded and used many times.
        you are delusional if you think bombers can be 'reloaded' in a nuclear war

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why doesn't America have nook launchers like communist shitholes?

    I think America needs a 30-wheeler carrying the newest Minuteman and parade dozens of it in Washington DC.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only thirdies do military parades to remind their people to keep in line. America's everyday military operations are more effective than any parade.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        America absolutely does military parades, have you not seen the superbowl fly-overs?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        America still needs a 30+-wheeler nook launcher because it looks cool.

        America loves big trucks and big missiles, they can do both properly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they are dogshit ideas based on an utterly moronic presumption. Parade beauties are literally the best strategic value they have.

      The entire idea behind these things is that they'll somehow manage to drive out of range of a targeted strike. Forgetting that they can typically be out speeded by a bike, have to drive through the pandemonium of an air raid alert while facing weapons fully capable of limited mid-trajectory retargetting, while even the low blast Psi zone, where it just takes out wood housing, will most likely damage their missile to the point where the it is unlikely to reach exo atmospheric before ripping apart.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Air leg is capable of responding to new targeting as mentioned, but most importantly it adds more targets for enemy planners. It's one of their strategic factors that they share in common with missile fields.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but most importantly it adds more targets for enemy planners.
      for the same price you can just add more silos instead. what a moronic reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A missile silo is a singular target. If you want to permanently get rid of nuclear bombers, you need to kill EVERY airbase with a runway big enough to launch them including civilian airports. Please never go into strategic planning, moron-kun

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The bombers can also be used to drop regular ordnance.
    What else have the Minuteman silos been doing the past 60 years?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What else have the Minuteman silos been doing the past 60 years?
      Give it a couple more years, and all the residual meth and coke from the crews will cause them to gain sentience

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      except 99% of ordnance have been dropped with multiroles so bombers are still useless.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, except for the bombs dropped by F-16s and A-10s, every bomb dropped in Desert Storm was dropped by a nuclear-capable bomber. Do the math.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that's just false. since the f-117 also dropped bombs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            and you think the F-117 isn't nuclear capable?

            YOU might be the kind of idiot to design your latest top-of-the-line stealth bomber to NOT be capable of dropping the most destructive weapon in your arsenal, but the USAF isn't

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and you think the F-117 isn't nuclear capable?
              no. i know it's not a BOMBER.
              how moronic are you?
              >every bomb dropped in Desert Storm was dropped by a nuclear-capable bomber.
              >bomber
              what do you think the F in F-117 stands fore, moron?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                hm, so which cope tactic is this?
                >i was only pretending to be moronic
                or
                >if i nitpick this one debatable point i win
                or just plain obstreperous
                >devolve this into fifty name-calling posts to drown out the main point which I lost

                lol no
                take the L and frick off.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >say thing that's completely wrong
                >got pointed out
                >smugly replied thinking he's right
                >got spoonfed why he's wrong
                >HURRR DURURRURUR
                lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i know it's not a BOMBER
                >what do you think the F in F-117 stands for
                Not actually "fighter", because the F-117 has nearly no air-to-air capability
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Designation

                >say thing that's completely wrong
                >got pointed out
                >smugly replied thinking he's right
                >got spoonfed why he's wrong
                >HURRR DURURRURUR
                lmao

                >say thing that's completely wrong
                you mean the part where you claimed
                >99% of ordnance have been dropped with multiroles so bombers are still useless
                and got instantly BTFOd and resorted to this lying to hide the fact?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >F-117
                >F
                >a bomber
                lol. lmfao even.

                >and got instantly BTFOd
                oh did i get BTFOd when you said "if you don't count these multiroles then only bombers dropped bombs" didnt notice LMFAO

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >didnt notice
                Yes, you're highly ignorant, we know

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its you moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >n-n-no u!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There is no “nearly”
                It straight up doesn’t have any air-to-air capability short of a kamikaze maneuver.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                theoretically it can be rigged to launch Sidewinders. we wouldn't know because it's still so secretive. but that hardly counts because virtually anything flying can be rigged to launch old-style Sidewinders.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                F is for Farce

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They can be called back, so it's a more staggered escalation.
    Land leg is really just to suck up a ton of warheads, that's most of it's purpose is to be a punching bag.
    Sea leg is the 'frick you and all your gay commie friends, apocalypse now', hardest to detect and intercept, shortest time of flight, and heaviest/most accurate throw weight per missile.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >so it's a more staggered escalation.
      what does that even me LMFAO

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        China or Russia knows when the B-2s leave Whitman to within a few minutes. They know from dead reckoning and partial intercepts where they are and when the first of their AGCMs will start distributing spicy neutrons. This time frame is measured in the tens of hours. That's a lot of time to talk it out with the American president.

        Meanwhile, if an Ohio class gets the FLASH message, tubes open and 10-30 minutes later depending on the sub's position, the war is over. So no meaningful time frame for negotiation.

        Also unlike land or air, the sea component is operates under command by negation. Every 12-24 hours they get a message saying 'Don't nuke everyone'. Their standing orders are to launch, everyday. If they *don't* receive that signal, away we go. They have to be ordered daily not to nuke everyone, which I find hilarious.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They have to be ordered daily not to nuke everyone
          bit of an exaggeration
          like every military unit, if they lost contact they will radio home and find out what's going on

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Break EMCON when TACAMO is no longer transmitting
            Lmao, no.

            If we want them too. Which in this situation we would.

            > Every 12-24 hours they get a message saying 'Don't nuke everyone'.
            That’s not how it works.

            It is.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >It is
              source

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >China or Russia knows when the B-2s leave Whitman to within a few minutes.
          nope

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are moronic if you doubt this. For something this high stakes you don't think either of those countries would place people in the surrounding communities to keep an eye on the base? You don't think there isn't a bunch of people who live nearby that wouldn't immediately start posting videos on socials when they see all the bombers start taking off? How much of the base personnel would start sending out warning messages to family? There are a billion things that could tip off you or me that something is up just from open source shit. Its moronic to think that countries that have a massive incentive to pay attention wouldn't be doing so.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >For something this high stakes you don't think either of those countries would place people in the surrounding communities to keep an eye on the base?
              and you're moronic to think that you're the only one on the internet to have thought of this, and nobody else has

              try even just caravanning in Faslane, for example. see how fast you get a knock on your door.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're moronic.
              >place people in the surrounding communities to keep an eye on the base?
              These people don't live in the airbase. Also, B-2s often take off at night.
              >How much of the base personnel would start sending out warning messages to family?
              Most won't because if shit got real the communications would be locked tight as the first thing. Also, few people on the base know the details of a specific mission the bombers have.
              >There are a billion things that could tip off you or me
              You think you're smarter than everyone else when you're so moronic that you can't imagine people who plan these things take this into consideration despite OPSEC being their #1 job when working with the most secretive and advanced bombers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Every 12-24 hours they get a message saying 'Don't nuke everyone'.
          That’s not how it works.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One thing people always overlook is "if you're not killed in the blast you'll be fine". Warday by Whitley Streiber (inb4 alien kook) brought this up in fine detail. Say a 1MT blast glasses NY. Sure, downtown is fricked. But:
    >You'd have millions of people outside of that with 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
    >You'd have millions of people lacerated by flying glass and debris.
    >You'd have millions of people with no infrastructure for sewage or plumbing.
    >You'd have millions of people needing blood transfusions and there simply wouldn't be enough

    Warday posited that even a limited exchange would be disastrous for a country. A few major cities gone COULD cripple the nation. People aren't going to go to work when nukes are flying, so the economy crashes overnight. Medical supplies will be at an extreme premium, so you might see something like a national triage where certain conditions are just not treatable anymore. The currency will flatline and be worthless overnight, and in the aftermath of two superpowers nuking it out every regional power is going to go knives out since there's no more world police around to keep the peace.

    Sure, it's survivable. It wouldn't be the "end of all life on Earth" like morons make it out to be. But it would be real frickin nasty and would take the US down to true 3rd world level for at least a decade if not more, assuming another regional power doesn't take advantage and fill that void.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It wouldn't be the "end of all life on Earth" like morons make it out to be.
      It would, but it would be like a shotgun blast to the gut using birdshot from a long, yet still lethal distance. In short, the worst way to kill modern civ. Let it bleed out.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Can somebody explain to me the point of the air leg of the nuclear triad?
    Bombers are sent to wipe out the enemy's mobile launchers that survived your first strike.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      and they magically know where the launchers are how?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and they magically know where the launchers are how?
        Advanced spy satellites must really appear like magic to you vatniks, huh?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure most silos have been deliberately built to be visible from air/space, as being able to independently count silos was a big part arms control arrangements.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, it's because silos are fricking huge, especially the soviet ones since they house maintenance personnel and you cannot feasibly hide their construction against satellites anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and they magically know where the launchers are how?
        Google maps, picrel

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        B-2s have a frickhuge expensive radar for a reason.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        aerial reconnaissance

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To sum up:
    Air--The flexible leg, able to do all sorts of things, especially once you have long-range stealth bombers and cruise missiles. Technically the most accurate delivery platform with the new GPS/INS-guided B61. The only leg that can be retasked or recalled. Can be forward-positioned in an orbit outside of the enemy's airspace. Can get anywhere on the planet in half a day with tanker support.
    Land--The fastest leg to respond, thanks to being constantly in contact with NCA. They can be exploding halfway across the world within an hour of a threat being detected. The "punching bag" of the triad, it threatens the enemy with a large force of warheads that they can actually shoot at, encouraging them to "waste" warheads on counterforce targets instead of countervalue targets.
    Sea--The big guns. The most survivable leg of the triad, capable of both hiding from enemy sight and holding its countervalue targets at risk, as well as offering a very nasty first-strike option with the new super-fuzes, with very little time for the enemy to respond if you can sneak the subs up close to them. There's a reason the US places the majority of its eggs in this basket.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can turn your bombers around. (See By Dawn's Early Light, great movie).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Do better next time".

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In any nuclear exchange, all targets are precoordinated. The ICMB silos will get to launch but will be taken out quickly. During launch detection the US scrambles its air assets out to launch follow on attacks and land them at other air bases. And sea based triad is powerful but slow. Think of them as the last punch.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It may be expensive as frick, but it adds real capability in the case of a nuclear first strike.
    As far as we know the B2 is pretty much undetectable, so it can be used to strike enemy launch facilities without giving them any time to react.
    No other nation can get a nuclear first strike off without giving the enemy a few minutes to get their missiles in the air.
    The B-52s are a big more questionable, but if the US goes all out and total extermination is on the menu, there's no cheaper way to deliver large quantities of nukes after the enemy air defenses are destroyed.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth aircraft provide realistic surprise nuclear strike capability. Older strategic bombers are for mop-up and bait.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bombers worry the shit out politicians ever since they watched Dr. Strangelove. But at least they can be recalled unlike missile launches.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Planes can get in the air before missiles come in and are much easier to move around so that all your weapons can't be taken out in a first strike.

    They are somewhat obsolete in terms of their original use case vis-á-vis the US, since air defenses will likely take out any before they get on target.

    But if you're the US, the air leg adds an absolutely splendid first strike capability because you can start off by hitting enemy nuke sites with stealth bombers, then have the missiles come in one silos and C&C are already destroyed.

    China will have this capability with the H-60 as well, although they won't have the air bases to stage from.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is no one aware of the fact that bombers can stay in the air for a really long time and much more mobile than subs/silos? The point of bombers is to takeoff at any suspected possible nuclear attack, or better yet constantly have some in the air under rotation, and just fly away from any engagement or nuclear strike. Nukes coming towards the US? Even if the somehow silos get taken out first and the subs don't get the message (or any of those get cold feet and pussy out), there are still bombers flying in the air at all times that can retaliate. The was the reason for the Strategic Air Command. It's a lot harder to nuke a plane out of the sky, especially when it can just fly out of dense US airspace and over some isolated place or neutral country that won't be nuked then fly the plane towards any retaliatory targets. Modern cruise missiles launched from bombers have crazy range so the planes don't even have to get in range of enemy air defenses. So even if bombers can't carry the same nuclear arsenal as silos/subs, they still exist to just throw something back at the enemy if the prior two are taken out, just to really make sure MAD happens.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It forces nukes to hit those airfields with B2s and B52s. I'm more curious if the Airforce haded the the other delivery method to the new guys

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder America doesn't know how to make ICBMs anymore.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *