ICBM’s can deliver a nuclear payload across the planet in half an hour without being shot down. (Sorry G.W., it just ain’t gonna happen). B-2 bombers would take 3 to 6 hours as a WAG, and are susceptible to being shot down by fighters and ground-based AA. So why does any country possessing ICBM’s still need bombers? What’s the advantage?
A) Bombers can be recalled.
B) Bombers can carry payloads other than nuclear bombs.
C) Bombers like the B2 can strike targets without notice.
D) Having multiple delivery systems complicates the enemy’s war plans.
E) Bombers are flexible, and can change targets at a moment’s notice. Important for tactical nukes aimed at military targets.
The B-2, for example, has been used in all sort of bombing campaigns so far, and none of them have involved nukes.
OK, that makes sense. Except I think ICBM’s could carry payloads other than nuclear, although it would be a tremendous waste of resources.
Also, bombers can carry many different kinds of bombs. Changing the payload of an ICBM in the field is not a trivial matter.
There’s been some recent talk of equipping sub-based trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads. The idea has a certain sex appeal:
But it’s not likely to ever replace bombers.
This seems like a bad, BAD idea, and I’m glad they mentioned it in the article:
It only takes one mistake…
Is the CEP of a SLBM good enough to warrant conventional warheads? From what I gather, Trident II D-5 missiles are somewhere inside 120 meters. That’s plenty good for a nuke, but 120 meters/300 feet isn’t exactly a near-miss with a conventional bomb, especially if the target isn’t something big and soft.
CEP = circular error probable. It’s a measure of the accuracy of a ballistic missile, and is basically the radius of the circle in which the warhead will impact. A 300 foot/120 meter CEP is basically saying that if you aim at home plate of a major league stadium, then the missile will hit somewhere within a circle with its radius as large as home plate to the outfield fences (more or less).
Well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Besides, the cold war is over. Russia is our friend. Surely they wouldn’t go nuclear just because we launch a few ICBM’s? 
In all seriousness, we can only hope that there’s a major debate raging in the pentagon and congress over this.
bump, Part of the described program involves fitting the warheads with GPS and steering fins, so as to get the required accuracy.
Britain - which has plenty of ICBMs - no longer posesses a heavy bomber or any air launched nuclear capability.
SLBMs, actually.
In any case, it is true that only the USA and Russia have anything resembling a real “Heavy Bomber” force (in Russia’s case, much diminished), but that’s more a reflection of the reality that for most nations, the use of cheaper fighter-bombers, SR/IRBMs (e.g. Scuds) and cruise missiles, that only need reach the territory of their specific regional rival/threat and can be loaded with everything from precision-guided conventionals to WMDs both nuke and nonnuke, is more cost-effective than having a long-range heavy-bomber force.
To elaborate a bit on what Sam Stone wrote:
The US has based its defensive structure versus nukes in it “Nuclear Triad”. The three legs of this triad are land based missiles, bomber aircraft and nuclear submarines. The idea is to complicate the plans of anyone who might wish to attack us. There was a school of thought that during the Cold War it might be in the Soviet’s best interests to just launch a massive first strike and be done with it. The triad is there to make it near impossible for an enemy to have any belief that they could sufficiently cripple the United States’ nuclear retaliation capability. No matter what they do enough nukes will survive to annihilate our attackers right back. Hence MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Often you would see people arguing the silliness of the US possessing enough nukes to zap the world seven times over (or something like that). All those nukes weren’t there so we could bounce rubble but rather to be sure there would always be enough in any circumstance to scare the piss out of a would-be aggressor.
Bombers also serve one other role. They offer an escalation path to indicate the seriousness of the US government’s displeasure without actually going to war. Once an ICBM flies there is no stopping it. Nuclear subs are always out there but hidden (their threat is implicit but not in anyone’s face). Bombers can be used as a visible threat without actually shooting. For example the President could station bombers to fly circles just outside of the air space of some country to send a strong message that can’t be ignored.
Make no mistake that even a conventional attack from strategic bombers is pretty serious. IIRC a few years ago in Afghanistan there was some stiff resistance that was being run into. Precision strikes from tactical fighter/bombers just wasn’t getting the job done. Our government rolled a few B-52s over them and the resistance nearly evaporated. I’ve never personally experienced it but having a B-52 unload anywhere near you apparently is an experience you won’t forget if you actually survive it (the two other psychological heavy hitters on the battlefield, as I have heard it, being major artillery barrages and/or getting shot at by our now defunct battleships).
Doesn’t the US base strategic bombers out of GB or have those been removed? If still there the British may not say they have their very own strageic bomber force but for all practical purposes they do in the US planes stationed there.
The US has no heavy bombers in Europe at all. I believe the UK is home only to some tankers and a couple of F-15 squadrons.