# Why do countries with ICBM's need bomber planes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890 "2004-12-21T01:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/1 "2004-12-21T01:11:19Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/2 "2004-12-21T01:20:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/3 "2004-12-21T01:28:07Z")
OK, that makes sense. Except I think ICBM’s could carry payloads other than nuclear, although it would be a tremendous waste of resources. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/4 "2004-12-21T01:48:15Z")
Also, bombers can carry many different kinds of bombs. Changing the payload of an ICBM in the field is not a trivial matter. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/5 "2004-12-21T01:55:30Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > B) Bombers can carry payloads other than nuclear bombs. There’s been some recent talk of equipping [sub-based trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads.](http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/comments/062702itp.txt) The idea has a certain sex appeal: > [@](#): > > Launched from a stealthy submarine, the strategic-range missile’s flight time to target would be measured in minutes. That means a fleeting target – like a suspected terrorist’s temporary hideout halfway around the globe – might be destroyed very quickly after a sub receives the order to shoot. But it’s not likely to ever _replace_ bombers. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/6 "2004-12-21T02:01:24Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > There’s been some recent talk of equipping [sub-based trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads.](http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/comments/062702itp.txt) The idea has a certain sex appeal. This seems like a bad, BAD idea, and I’m glad they mentioned it in the article: > [@](#): > > But the effort to develop such a weapon may prove highly controversial. Defense strategists and diplomats worry the launch of a conventional D-5 missile from a submerged sub could easily be misinterpreted by other nuclear powers, like Russia or China, as a launch of its clone, the nuclear D-5. > > The nuclear Trident D-5 is perhaps the most fearsome weapon in the U.S. arsenal because of its ability to attack multiple, hardened targets in a knock-out punch. Each of 18 Ohio-class Trident submarines carry 24 D-5 long-range missiles, and each of those is loaded with up to eight re-entry vehicles that can be independently targeted. > > In the first minutes when foreign satellites or radars detect a U.S. submarine’s missile launch, potential nuclear adversaries may assume the worst: that the missile is nuclear-armed and headed their way. Alarm about the imminent possibility of doomsday may prompt a foreign leader to launch his own nuclear weapon – or weapons – before coming under attack, the thinking goes. It only takes one mistake… ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/7 "2004-12-21T04:33:57Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > There’s been some recent talk of equipping [sub-based trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads.](http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/comments/062702itp.txt) The idea has a certain sex appeal: But it’s not likely to ever _replace_ bombers. 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). ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/8 "2004-12-21T04:59:13Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > It only takes one mistake… 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. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/9 "2004-12-21T11:22:01Z")
Britain - which has plenty of ICBMs - no longer posesses a heavy bomber or any air launched nuclear capability. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/10 "2004-12-21T15:02:56Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/11 "2004-12-21T18:36:08Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/12 "2004-12-21T18:44:42Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > Britain - which has plenty of ICBMs - no longer posesses a heavy bomber or any air launched nuclear capability. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-countries-with-icbms-need-bomber-planes/280890/13 "2004-12-21T18:51:25Z")
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.