What role are bombers supposed to play in a nuclear war?

Recall-ability and flexibility. Even in a purely nuclear context, you can mount a wide array of atomic weapons on a bomber which further complicates defense plans; MIRVs and MARVs are not as capable as often purported, nor can ballistic missiles be aborted. And of course, they have applicability in conventional combat that ICBMs (and SSBNs to a lesser degree) lack.
 
In the case of the U.S. I believe Bombers can deliver higher yield warheads than ICBM's and SLBM's. Until the retirement of the B53 bomb (which apparently had a 9MT yield) the the difference was apparently quite significant although the B83 bomb reportedly has a yield of approx one MT. Reportedly the U.S. also has gravity bombs with a certain amount of ground penetration capabilities.

Curtis LeMay, who was a big fan of bombers over missiles, was a major factor as well. When he was Commander of Strategic Air Command and later Air Force Chief of Staff he put more emphasis and resources on huge bomber fleets instead of on intercontinental missiles. It's partly due to his influence the Soviets focused more on strategic missiles as they knew they'd never be able to match the sheer size of the US bomber fleet.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Curtis LeMay, who was a big fan of bombers over missiles, was a major factor as well. When he was Commander of Strategic Air Command and later Air Force Chief of Staff he put more emphasis and resources on huge bomber fleets instead of on intercontinental missiles. It's partly due to his influence the Soviets focused more on strategic missiles as they knew they'd never be able to match the sheer size of the US bomber fleet.

On the flip side of that, it also forced the Soviets to expend massive amounts of money on bomber interceptor and comparatively less on ABMs.
 
Top