Presumably that would change as the military moved up (or is it down?) the DEFCON scale. They don’t spend all their time there either, I’m pretty sure they base out of the UK on some occasions, maybe out of ‘RAF’ Mildenhall?
AFAIK the USAF stopped having bombers on continuous airborne alert after one of them crashed in Greenland in 1968.
1 Like
…describes the overall program and the 1966 crash. The 1968 crash was this one:
1 Like
Yep, the dreaded transfer of wealth that so many pro-war types disdain.
1 Like
As I said, they’re one part of a multi-pronged defense.
If you have a scholarly source discussing how B-2s are only useful for 1st strike, I’d love to read more.
This is also less relevant now that we have nuclear submarines that can stay submerged for months at a time. The first nuclear submarine wasn’t put out in the world until the late 50s, and they weren’t armed with nukes until the 60s. Now that that technology is mature, the need for circling planes is lessened since it’s extremely unlikely our entire submarine fleet could be wiped out. (And then, of course, we’d launch back at whoever attacked us… maybe not full blown MAD but definitely full blown you-will-get-your-major-population-centers-nuked-back)
I suppose the pilots need to log some hours to prevent losing their rating to fly the things. As the B2 isn’t cheap to run, it would make sense to have them fly the odd mission that could be accomplished by other types of aircraft (or drones or cruise missiles) in order to maintain operational capabilities.
Politics and morality and defensive needs and whatever else notwithstanding… the B-2 in flight is an impressive sight. I’ve seen it that way twice, once from far away and landing at Edwards AFB, and (a thousand times more impressive) flying alarmingly low over the 14 freeway, almost directly above us – low enough for us to clearly make out the white undercarriage and wells – and looking so alien, like something attacking this planet. As familiar as I am with its looks, it still looks so sci-fi when in flight.
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I thought that the B-2 was only useful for a first strike. That’s not what I wrote, and what I wrote was replying to your assertion that “Their main job is to drop nukes deep inside Russia if the cold war goes hot.” Of course, the B-2s can be used for many other useful purposes, including delivering puppies to deserving orphans, but, in my opinion, they are an incredible waste for any application that is not a nuclear strike against another major power. The uses that I have seen described for their nuclear role imply using them as a first strike weapon, such as decapitating the enemy headquarters or destroying mobile missile launchers. They were developed at a time when the American government thought that a global nuclear war could be winnable, at about the same time when Reagan was pushing for the Strategic Defense Initiative. Not a good approach to world peace.
Anyway, this is the Boing Boing BBS and I am just stating my opinion, that sometimes may be mistaken, and that your are naturally free to disagree with. It is also my opinion that this country wastes too much money on weapons and fighting wars of choice that have nothing to do with the defense of the United States, that devastate and destabilize other countries, and that those resources would be better used doing basic things like providing universal health care or free college.
May peace be with you. 
Yeah, I see now I grouped you in with another poster.
I still want to push back on the idea that “Because their natural use would be to perform a first strike, they are worse than useless”.
First, they came into being at a time when nuclear submarines were a newer technology. While they’re currently based on one place, they can be moved around - something missile silos cannot.
Second, the stealth technology itself was expensive because it was new. Now, we incorporate stealth into a variety of aircraft, at a much lower cost.
Anyways, I feel a little weird being the pro-nuclear-bomber guy. But personal experiences have shaped my world view dramatically. I think there are a lot of bad people out there. Not in the “hate-your-freedom” sense, but oligarchs and strongmen who get elected by writing checks they can’t (or shouldn’t) cash.
I’d love to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but for now I think the best thing is to focus on a robust second strike capability. Submarines, stealth jets, whatever it takes.
First, while nuclear bombers preceded the equipment of SSBN with ICBMs by a few decades, the B-2 stealth nuclear bomber was developed when a reliable second strike capability, the SSBN-launched ICBM, had already been in service for a few decades.
Second, stealth technology is still not cheap. The F-22 and the F-35 are very, very expensive, much more expensive to acquire and to operate than conventional fighters.
In my opinion, more a more expensive weapons do not always make us safer, sometimes is the other way around.
That’s valid. TBH, it hasn’t been the best day. Sorry for being snarky.
1 Like
Less relevant if you assume the purpose of the US military is as a fighting force.
On the other hand, B-2’s are still very relevant if you assume that the purpose of the US military is to move money from tax payers to defence contractors as efficiently as possible.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
