So far, no mistakes with ICBMs needing to be recalled as compared with numerous mistakes with bombers bombing wrong targets, albeit conventional ones.You know the thing about missiles? They can't be recalled. Any mistake made with an ICBM can't be rectified. Furthermore, I'm afraid that an ICBM can't perform a multi-role mission, while a heavy bomber can - and has, consistently.
More importantly, I'm not saying that we should NOT have developed ICBMs and especially SLBMs, just that we should not have capped bomber development at the B-52. Yes, I know that we have the B-1/B-2 program today, but the fact of the matter is that instead of a rapidly declining B-52 fleet, we could currently be deploying hundreds of B-70s and (more importantly) their derivatives, in addition to missiles and stealth bombers.
The B-70 was too expensive, too vulnerable, and not needed. It also was not able as a bomb truck as it flew to high and too fast to drop iron bombs with any accuracy. (And it would have cost too much to deploy as a conventional bomber.) Do a search on the B-70. Its failings as a usable weapon were discussed at great length. While the B-70 was an amazing piece of technology, it was incapable of effectively fulfilling a useful role for the United States.
Given the costs, there was no way the United States could have deployed hundreds of B-70s. They would have been too expensive to procure and operate besides being incapable of fulfilling their mission profile due to advances in SAMs. Just as with the B-58, they were a technological and financial dead end.
Of course, the B-70 may appeal to you if you fail to understand the implied truth in Jukra's sarcastic statement making fun of weapon wankery:
the duty of various military forces is not trying to equip and train themselves for the role given to them by their respective political commanders but to field cool military equipment.
Last edited: