If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?
I think you'd have to have a different Bomber Command come out of WWII. What they did to Germany and Japan, and how they did it, was something that to their eyes cemented a belief in strategic bombing as smoething that could win wars.
Or perhaps have the V-2 be more effective? Thus demonstrating the importance of ballistic missiles ahead of schedule.
Did Navy win, and the United States decides to base its deterrent forces on supercarriers. (Point of departure--Truman realizes LeMay is totally whacko.)
What if for whatever reason the US lacked loitering B-52s to provide nuclear retalition to the USSR during the Cold War--an inferior SAC, basically? Would there be any interesting consequences? If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?
There is a difference between having a Personality and suffering from Major Depressive Disorder. Mental illness is not the same as sociopathy.Yes, as opposed to James Forrestal, who killed himself? Right.![]()
Ironically (in the sense of your proposed POD) ballistic missiles DID eventually derail US bomber development, when Robert McNamara (Satan Incarnate) took over the DoD and essentially axed strategic bomber development in favor of missiles. The reason we DON'T have a more modern heavy bomber is directly attributable to a SecDef who didn't know shit about Defense, nor was he willing to learn.
So ICBM's which are cheaper to produce and require no crew to fly and are also still damn near impossible to shoot down are a bad idea compared to nuclear bombers?
Add the fact that compared to ICBM a heavy bomber is slightly more difficult to put into a silo which can withstand all but almost direct hits...
Try putting heavy bombers in a submarine--that, too, is difficult.Add the fact that compared to ICBM a heavy bomber is slightly more difficult to put into a silo which can withstand all but almost direct hits...
Try putting heavy bombers in a submarine--that, too, is difficult.
So ICBM's which are cheaper to produce and require no crew to fly and are also still damn near impossible to shoot down are a bad idea compared to nuclear bombers?
Well actually a ballistic missile is usually quite a bit easier if you actually invest in ABM weaponry then a bomber.
Well actually a ballistic missile is usually quite a bit easier if you actually invest in ABM weaponry then a bomber.
What if for whatever reason the US lacked loitering B-52s to provide nuclear retalition to the USSR during the Cold War--an inferior SAC, basically? Would there be any interesting consequences? If you prefer, what would drive this state to be?