First Strike (Part 3)

[lazyfreedom98]

OK, I just rolled on to the wet spot. I am going to take a short brake here. 

[lonslens]

same lamp.... props

[creativeprojects720]

regarding the b-52. we have other bombers now, newer ones, like the B-1 and the B-2 stealth.(flying wing)

[creativeprojects720]

yeah but why would we attack russia? we should never think of that.

[creativeprojects720]

bad stuff. We should disassemble all long range nuclear weapons.

[helperturtle]

Te dude is EDWARD LUTTWAK... top advisor for many administrations...

probably he convinced many to build B-1 and F-117 & B-2 stealth bombers!

[MorgothBauglir3791]

During the Cold War, the largest leg of the US Triad was the Bomber Force while the Soviet Bomber Force was the smallest. Thus Soviet SLBMs could take out more US nuclear warheads in a First Strike than US SLBMs could take out in a similar strike on Soviet Bomber Bases.

[disamjisa]

@0:40 I think part of the reason that the bomber bases were so conspicuously close to the coast was to soak up a good portion of Soviet SLBMs

[zabercrombie24]

And this is why the B-2 is based at Whiteman AFB folks, to deter the time it takes for enemy ICBM's to target .

[almostconcerned]

Modernize our weapons (which requires actual testing), implement theater ballistic missile defense, bring back the strategic triad (including devolving launch authority to submarine commanders), revive SAC, and -- in doing so -- restore the full deterrent effect of our nuclear forces.

[FylthyBeest]

@almostconcerned Could you please elaborate on your recommendation to devolve launch authority to submarine commanders?

[almostconcerned]

@FylthyBeest In the book Strategic command and control: redefining the nuclear threat pg 101 it states that this authority may have already been granted to boomer commanders in the past by the US. The Soviets definitely granted nuke release to low level commanders during the Cuban Missile crisis (google Vasili Arkhipov). Anyway, in most cases much of the entire crew must cooperate to launch so the danger is minimized while second strike deterrent value is maximized.

[kurlobe]

.. I sware 3:02 He looks like harrison ford! ...... Im looking at a picture of ford on google as I watch this.. Its a near 85% match in facial looks ! .... SPECIALLY ROUND THE NOSE AREA!

[southerngirls4fun]

In depth into the mind set of the 80s

[dagda825]

The dude at the end is an idiot. The B-52 is still kicking in 2011, almost 20 years past it's "useful life". A more poinient question should be: why does the average person (on either side of the the line) have to continuously slave away to support "think tank" mentalities such as this "1995" moron? Geeeee, I wish I got paid millions to utter complete crap.

[mrtrin]

@dagda825 You're right. But within the paradigm of the Cold War, the B-52 was vulnerable. Keep in mind that since the Iron Curtain went down, Russian military technology (as far as being incorporated into its actual military force, rather than R&D) stagnated.

That, and the fact that the only wars fought since this was aired in the late 70s, early 80s (which is why they talk about the B-1 bomber, rather than the scaled down B-1B) were against former soviet client states that had older stuff.

[agwhitaker]

6:26 "The B 52s are good till 1995...."

Hey! Its 16 years later and they are still flying.

[HooshIsASoup]

@agwhitaker Even funnier, they're slated to keep flying until at least 2040/2050! There's already cases where three generations of a family have been crew members aboard a B-52. I wonder how long we can keep these birds going.

[Danbo342]

Yet another solution.

Seems like the #1 issue they talk about it deployment.

Ok, then stop all the funds to that technology and put it in anti-detection.

Now just go around the world to all your enemies and at "strategic" areas buy some land and plant a nuke.

Now should the day come to where you need to go to war, you simply grab your remote and blow up the world. No deployment, no wasted time. Or even better, just get a huge bomb in our core and kill us all in one shot, thanks.

[Op3rationMongoose]

where can i buy or download this documentary?

[dagda825]

@Op3rationMongoose archives.org, I believe.

[indyfan22k]

wow!!! only 1/3 of those who watched part 2 also watched part 3.

I wonder how many of these dudes are still alive.

[skateboardgumby]

I'd like to recommend the movie "Fail Safe" starring Henry Fonda. Talk about a frightening movie!

[AngelofDeath595]

@skateboardgumby ya that was a good movie real eye opener)

[brownjack56]

Where can I get a DVD copy of this video?

[filmsouth]

A lot of pipe tobacco also. -- the Filmmaker

[doubleshockpower]

The amount of Brylcreem it took to make this documentary is staggering!

[doubleshockpower]

The amount of Brylcreem it took to make this documentary is staggering.

[thatkidinthegreenhat]

This is an old video. Today the key for bomber forces is unmanned stealth aircraft.

[ThInTrM]

@thatkidinthegreenhat Which is why the USAF is slated to fly a manned strategic bomber as the backbone of its bomber force for almost a full century, right?

[hpmc9]

i would move the bombers inland, and develop a new status of 'semi-alert' where there would be crew at a moment's notice that could get them off the ground and out of there - one man per plane, evacuation as the only mission, and have 100 percent of bombers on alert or semi-alert

[AngelofDeath595]

@hpmc9 at the time there were always crews already in the air on partols in B-52's alrdy armed with Nukes rdy and waiting to drop there loads on the USSR but that order never came

[FylthyBeest]

@AngelofDeath595 You're about 15 to 20 years off. Look it up. "Chrome Dome" and other airborne alert missions were termintated in the early to mid 1960's. After that permanent grounding and the deployment of Minuteman missiles, B-52s and other alert aircraft pulled ground alert.

[BombasticTrooper]

"The B-52 is good until 1995" I believe they are now projected until 2050!

[kerimil]

@BombasticTrooper

yeah but these days they are used to bomb 3rd world countries with no SAMs

[silver760]

After watching this,its surprising how ill-informed the USA was at the time.The USSR were trying to get away from fixed facilities and were moving over to mobile ICBM and subs as they were easier to hide,cheaper to build and man.

[cnoyes72]

The comment about the B52's having a service life up to 1995 is funny. I've read recently that with upgrades the Air Force will be flying them into the 2030's

[RingSight91]

@cnoyes72 The B-52H will be SLEPd to 2040. These were not H models being presented as extending to 1995. These were the old F and G models.

[AngelofDeath595]

@cnoyes72 mate there reopen a new line for building new B-52Hs to keep them flying till 2040 thats only cos there got nothing cheap to replace them with the F-117 will be taking out of service in 2015 and the 509BS is the only squad flying B-2's and there cost to run like there run B-52's is too high thats why only 22 r in services.

[fixdeluxe1]

The Bombers response times were too slow and too soft (no immediate protection) to be effective unless 25% are in the Air at all times.

The ICBM's can be hardened and defended against,but still overwhelmed.

And as clearly pointed out,the sub-marines can be detected,and SLBM's are inaccurate and of lower-yield,as well as having poor communication and cohesion.

But these weaknesses were also inherent in the Soviet Union.

[t5239857289578947594]

It's scary to think the Minute Man missile has 300 something kilotons warheads,and what wiped out Hiroshima was(only) a 20 kiloton bomb.Another fun fact is, if the full 250 metric ton payload of the Antonov An-225 could be used, a 1.3 gigaton bomb could be delivered.Now that would be loud.Just saying.

[hpmc9]

they have contradicted themselves

they have said that our (b52) bomber forces were vulnerable to submarine forces, but then they said that our submarine forces are inacruate and only useful for 'city busting'

which is it?

[filmsouth]

@hpmc9 Both were true !

Bomber bases were large soft targets with bombers vulnerable at some distance to nukes detonated above the airfield.

Cities were large soft targets which less accurate (at that time) Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles were very capable of destroying.

[fajnycycek]

@hpmc9

because of concentration of bomber in bases

try to think in full scale

[Cancun771]

@hpmc9 That is indeed one of the key flaws in the argument. Another is overrating Soviet means to even detect, U.S. ballistic missile subs at sea. To borrow a phrase, 'perfection is not required' for a credibly sub based deterrent, what with even a single ballistic missile sub of the era being able to reliably take out one to two dozen major cities.

This was all a load of right-wing fearmongering in order to prompt porkbarrel spending for arms contractors.

[ThInTrM]

@Cancun771 That's quite a leap of logic you've made, without knowing who produced the video and who financed it, or their political leanings (if they have any at all).

"Porkbarrel spending" and "fearmongering" are not exclusive to right-wingers. A US military budget proposal does not make it out of Congress intact, no matter what it's suggesting.

[anisocoro]

@hpmc9 , well, bombers are on the surface, they are not armoured and a relatively small nuclear detonation could damage if not destroy a great number of bombers, which are very concentrated. A silo, deep in the ground, is far more resistent, probably a Hiroshima-type bomb wouldn't be able to rupture it even id detonated 1000m above it

[AngelofDeath595]

@hpmc9 maybe our sub's would be but what about there SUB's there could be more acruate maybe there could do the damage think could be done tech has come a long way since the 1950's and 60's

[bohemoth1]

@hpmc9 Our Trident Submarine Missile Force is more accurate that Polaris Poisiden Missils. Times have changed. Our B1 and Stealth Bombers can take off more rapidly than the B52s, Our ICBMs also can be more rapidly deployed. We still have MAD and thanks to GW Bush we will have a missile defense system. Too we have weapons that makes nuclear weapons obsolete!

[Zoomer30]

Was that b52 rollling SIDEWAYS?! Did not know all four gear units could steer. Looked odd to see it pointing foreward but rolling to the right (or I guess left from their pov)

[philip]

@Zoomer30 yes, their undercarriages could steer in almost any direction necessary. The aircraft are very survivable and were expected to land in any crosswind but stay on the runway.

[datzfast]

just have the fucking aircrew sleep in the fucking bomber there they are off the ground in 60 seconds.

[RingSight91]

@datzfast Have you tried taking a fucking nap in a fucking airplane - without blankets, reclining seats, or air conditioning, and while wearing an ejection seat harness and a Nomex Fire Resistant Flight Suit?

[datzfast]

@RingSight91 id fire your ass on the very first day.

[RingSight91]

@datzfast LOL what are you now, the SecDef? GTFO.

[anisocoro]

Well, It is interesting how it was studied the problem of penetrating Soviet Air defence by B-52. Before the advent of Mig-31, they could have been successful by flying at low quotes out of the range of big radars, perhaps among siberian mountains and valleys, as SAMs didn't prove to be very effective in Vietnam, and wouldn't have proved to be effective over Siberia,but after the advent of Mig-31's radars with look-down/shootdown capabilities, success probability had fallen below 1%

[grooveclubhouse]

the guy at the end is probably eating his hat about the b-52 now. lol

BUFF FTW!

[vic320]

I remember seeing this on TV when it first came out. It's amazing watching it again, now that the cold war is over. This is so clearly a propaganda piece by the military industrial complex to scare the American people into buying a $1,000,000,000,000 missile system that we didn't need. We now know that the Soviet Union had no where near the capabilities then we where told. Imagine what we could have done with that money rather than spending it on a bunch of crap that we did not need.

[Celeon999A]

@vic320

Well, they surely exaggerate things in such film productions to secure themselves further funding but with all the scaring aside, they had indeed a point there.

You need to remember that their informations while based on gathered intelligence were also mixed with huge load of guessing and assuming mixed in.

Of course it was their job to assume the worst, and in that case, that the soviet capabilities are as excellent as the worst scenarios predicted.

[eflint1]

@vic320 I don't suppose you mean letting tax payer keep their money. You probably mean social programs. The USSR lost. Get over it.

[bbad4all]

this is b. obahma and i approve this message !!.......

NOT!!

[Ironoff]

With u.s. superiority why is there even a discussion? All is pointless!

[drzhava73]

@Ironoff (With all due respect) This video is about 30 yrs old. Today it's nothing but a history lesson. The USSR in the '70s had a very scary military investment policy...the US was indeed in a window of vulnerability. I grew up in the 70's and evereyone was talking about the threat of nuclear war, it was a different era.

PS: I will admit this video sounds like a "cloaked advetisment" for the MX missile which is now deployed as "The Peacekeeper Missile"

[redmustang03]

Watch 1983: brink of Apocalypse on youtube and you will know how close all of the US and Russia and Europe were to annihilation, its really scary. Still the US had a lot of outdated equipment like the M-60 tank and the only good things going for them was the F-14 and F-15. It wasn't until the first few years of Reagan that programs got into action like the F-16, F-18, M1 Abrams tank, and the Apache helicopter. I wasn't until Desert Storm when we realized that the US had jumped ahead.

[Habu72]

25 seconds in, plane was based at Minot AFB, ND. The Frozen Chosen.

[neodelphi]

this is a simple way to make funding!!! create your own ghost!

[usmm05]

With the intelligence on the real Soviet capabilities following the Cold war, a flight of F-106's probably could've taken down an entire air force of Soviet bombers. We probably could've kept F-86's in service during the entire Cold War and would be totally effective.

[ljguitar91]

wasn't this after the XB-70 programme?

[voxadvt30]

"B-52's are good 'till 1995"... Yeah something like that...

[Takeital]

its almost as though the guy at 6:20 knows about stealth bomber development

[ImagineHuZhou]

That guy should know about stealth bombers, the US military was developing it at that time at Skunkworks.

[godscuttingyoudown]

@Takeital you half to understand that any present day tech that the military makes public was developed 50 yrs ago in secrecy

in fact all those rumors of UFO technology the nazis develped are now being confirmed by the russians, the germans did develope a way of using a magnetic feild to lift objects but lost the war before refining the tech

stealth tech wasinvented by the horten brothers in nazi germany 1945. the first stealth plan was the Horten 18

[AngelofDeath595]

@godscuttingyoudown witch was later the go-229 all wing fighter in small scale version but there build up scale is about the same sze as the B-2 . and tests were done not long ago on if the Go-229 had if any stealth ability and found that it did have a every small rader singel dectvions rate like that of the b-2

[32780tit]

@Takeital As the F117 was flying by 1981, I should think he did know!

[AngelofDeath595]

@32780tit the first test flight of the F-117 wasnt till 1982 and did see combat till panrmar in the late 80's

[pmgodfrey]

Great...move them to the middle of the US... Thanks...that's me.

[boobtuber06]

whiteman afb

[anisocoro]

In a nuclear war presumably communications would go dead between command centres and flying aircrafts, so URSS built mig-31 equipped of powerful radar. 10 mig-31 can "cover" 9000Km of front until they run out of fuel

[theredraven]

Woah, hold on, the MiG 31 is a defensive fighter. It's ranger is actually quite short in the same way the MiG 25 had short range. It's combat radius is only 720 KM and it's ferry range is 3,300 KM. I dunno where this 9000 KM comes from.

[anisocoro]

Primorski, a B-2 first has to be discovered by air defense, and THEN Russian officers (who are very trained and intelligent, I must admit) can try to shot down it. It is very, very difficult to detect a B2 by radar (according to a russian scientist who gave US formulas to achieve stealthness) and the most of air defense missiles are radar-driven, we know

[Guynumber7]

rumor has it that the S400 can detect stealth bombers

[oc5nsli341nforce4]

The militarization of space has been under way for decades as an answer to those dilemmas. Weaponized satellites armed with tactile warheads as for the solid state lasers they are still development but are working while are bulky with rather large power requirements. For the laser look up airborne laser.

[umahuma4]

this is probably irrelevent since the MX missile no longer is being deployed or in service, and submarine ballistic missile accuracy has been greatly inproved to pinpoint accuracy. Also the soviet union disentigrated in 1991

[joehimmler]

MX was the initial name of the Minuteman. They are deployed. Fifty, IIRC. Those fifty carry MRVS which multiplies their effectiveness.

[umahuma4]

The START 2 Treaty eliminated MIRVs from ICBMS from 3 down to 1 warhead.

[Xigano1]

@umahuma4

START II never realy went into effect and was officialy canceled in 2002. One day after the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Russia withdrew from START II.

The U.S. Minuteman III ICBM can still carry up to 3 MIRVs and the Russian RS-24 can carry up to 10.

[polygamous1]

@Xigano1 how good are stealth planes? from both sides? since during the yougoslavian war a Serbian Mig 25 shot down a $1.3 stealth bomber with its last missile as for cruise misiles the Russia/indian developed cruise has a near Mach 3 speed how about the Bulava Russians also have the Pershing short range 20 kilometters missile If anything goes past the S400s but am sure the first defence will come from the Sukois T50s with their huge range n last an all out attack from land sea air

[colliertng]

joehimmler, For The Record, The MX Missile (LGM -118A Peacekeeper) & The Minuteman 3 (LGM -30) Are Two Different Missile Systems.

[hispula]

These technologies have not changed much since the end of the Cold War. Stockpiles are smaller but the danger is still there.

[mard420]

lol first strike, or "how to get congressional approval for increased spending

[Ragnark1]

lo and behold the whole time this documentary was airing the B-2 was being developed. Problem solved.

[Primorsky]

"lo and behold the whole time this documentary was airing the B-2 was being developed. Problem solved. "

How you know? B-2 was not tested against updated soviet SAM systems and interceptors.

[Ragnark1]

The newer ones could probably get the B-2 but certainly nothing from that era. I challenge you to look further into the B-2 before patronizing me as to whether or not it could beat the soviet-era technology.

[anisocoro]

there is a wrong consideration about reaction-speed of the bomber crew: the voice said: "several minutes", but really it takes only 2' 30 '' to reach the airplane, start engines, and accelerate. If there were "engiines always started" reaction-time could be even shorter

[hrbear]

By the other side, the nuclear fallout. Just think how many cancers of today are even due to Chernobyl, then what about a nuclear war. My opinion is, nobody will won. It is time for the United Nations to take over, to start a universal disarming and save the human kind form the disaster.

[TRUCKERMcD]

"It is time for the United Nations to take over"

They did really well in Rwanda didn't they.

[Guynumber7]

lol dude everyone will NOT gieve up our nukes. if that happens all wars would be like WW2, costly and where the leaders dont have to give a shit about anything

[hrbear]

There is a philosophical question, or a technical one I can not say for sure. Can a nuclear war be won by any of the involved? Propably not. If you think that the 9/11 event changed the world so much, just because of two buildings, then how about a town? How about if Honk Kong lost, or Taiwan, or New York City, or...then a commercial collapse of the whole world!! Even if Moscow could be lost, then thw whole Europe could be out of natural gas for it's factories, and then a commercial disaster.

[TRUCKERMcD]

"If you think that the 9/11 event changed the world so much, just because of two buildings"

You are a retard! And I apologize to all retards out there for bringing you down to this level.

[kadathdreamques]

Even as a young man, I never understood this fascination with preserving 'urban' areas. Cities starve in only a few days (3-4) without regular supplies.

Drop a bomb on a few distribution centres, you might as well have dropped it on the city itself.

[walleyrt69]

I could survive a long time eating Pu**y.

[witecracker2]

i have to agree with u

we have nukes in space and spread out all over the world in which we have very little knowledge of what is really going on not to mention scalar weapons

[auto9898]

These guys were complaining about operating the "old" B-52 even back then. If they only knew.

[clarko95]

Okay, you have got to be messing with me. This is to funny.

[clarko95]

Okay get it strait. its 2008, we've elected Barak Obama as the new president. And just because someone says something doesn't mean its true. It could have been anyone. Do you know how much money it will cost to not only build but to maintain them? What galaxy are YOU living in? 1980 was 28 years ago. Jimmy carter served as prez 'till 1981. He was succeded by Ronald Reagan. I view Reagen as an imperialist who policed the world and fueled the flames that made Arabs hate the U.S.

[radioactiveshoes]

starwars missile defense XD but it is true that the military buildup was like water on a grease fire! but it is a generalization to say all Arabs hate the US

[clarko95]

I would never give a cent to the military at all. If i do, im just prolonging the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, in my point of view, is just Vietnam all over again. Besides, the U.S. already is the leading world superpower in military and economic terms, so why do we need 10,000 B-1's? If you didn't realize, its 2008 and the B-52's will last to about 2040. This video is nothing but propaganda and it is highly unlikely that another power would openly attack us knowing we can reataliate.

[clarko95]

I am laughing my freakin ass off. Are you absoulutly serious about it being 1978??? Are you really 98 years old? That would explain alot....

[clarko95]

Okay do you even know what year it is? Or what state the world's economy is in? 10,000 B-1s????????????? Are you kidding me?????

[mutley26]

Yup, cos moving your bombers inland wouldn't increase the time in the air for them to be picked off by attacking Soviet Migs...

Oh dear, I smell pork barrel politics.

[e633xx]

mmhhh... i thought the crabbing ability of the B-52 (shown at 5:26) was classified!

[johnrtx68]

Not sure how old this documentary is but it shows footage of B-52d's and those have not been in the inventory since the early to mid 80's. Much has changed since the intoduction of stealth technology in front line aircraft like the B-2 and B-1b

[DavidYakima]

They were talking about the B-52... It is currently rated as the #1 Bomber in history & is slated to be used in that role until 2045...and the last one was built in 1962-63, that means the new pilots today flying the plane are younger then it. Now that is amazing... David

[runehero123]

Thanks for the video, im russian and i enjoy watching this stuff.

[6458522]

wow edward luttak! He was always a psycho chicken hawk.

[JuggaloTheRolla]

Thats a crock of shit. yum....

anyway, i highly doughbt that that Russia and USA will ever launch a massive volley of ICBMs and MLRVs because the only winning move is not to play.

Both countries are dead in the End. not worth it. More effecient to send supirior troops and technology then and come back, rather then to launch nukes and then have nothing.

coachroches are the winners

[ludocrat]

"Wargames", 1983. Nice sentiment.

For myself, having grown up with 'cold war' deterrence, and as a totally convinced supporter of the theory of MAD, I think we (the human race) are more confused - and therefore more vulnerable - than at any time in our recent history.

The answer? Strategic rearmament - as a matter of extreme urgency. Deterrent is back on menu. We in the UK must make ourselves a coordinated part of any new nuclear program.

It's just the way it is. It's (sadly) necessary.

[mjtom2501]

This vidieo looks like it was made before Ronald Reagan was President.. All that has changed!

[Primorsky]

What is really changed? USA still can be nuked by Russia in first strike.

[BENY881]

and die a slow and very painfull death cos some dickhead's wanted 2 show each other how big their balls were and how big their brains wrn't...

[clarko95]

Nice philosophy:).

[BENY881]

I dont like nuke's ex 4 science + engineering trait's, but who couldn't love the B-52 "ol' wise man of war hey?" it will probably b fly'n when im wear'n old man dyper's and that fag thought it would b done in 1995. They should call the B-52's "The Rolling Stones" :) - come 2 think of it I would like 2 see B-52 with Rolling stones track.

[UmaHuma2]

I disagree with that guys statement about the B-52, i think its a very good aircraft,the military keeps them well maintained and theyo should be go till 2040

[ashes2flames]

This entire thing is meaningless now. Subs can drop a bomb in your window if they we tasked to. If you look up they could target the fillings in your teeth.

[ninety8devries]

this is 29 years old and the guy is talking about how old the B-52 was then? and here we are stiil using them and will till 2040.

[strykersux]

Its a fuckin workhorse! :) Kinda weird how this stuff might have some relavence again with the recent actions of Russia. Russia seems to be on the move again...

[sypherffs]

I don't get this.

Why do you piss off a country then complain about their reactions? like others say before me.

Best option is to not start playing.

[AustralianPyro]

if a nuclear war starts it will be between china/Iran/Nkorea and the US, the rest of the world will simply back off

[buntik1687]

I would not want to be around when such a war starts.

[moakley]

werent alot of the russian nuke subs being shadowed by us hunter killer subs?

[clarko95]

Yup. And vice-versa.

[ludocrat]

Was this deliberately describing a worst case scenario combined with extreme pessimism? Or was it made before the technical advances really had been made? I thought a strategic bomber force, for example, was in the air 24hrs a day then. I thought Ohio class Polaris subs were almost undetectable. And I guess Trident was still top secret!

[elfinfluff]

This is pretty much a DoD propaganda film that's designed to scare up new toys for the military. I like how they just glaze right over that the B-2 is just as vulnerable to attack as the B-52 is in their scenario. And completely ignore any potential for increasing the accuracy for sub-based missles.

[ludocrat]

Agree with all of this :)

[clarko95]

The problem is B-2 were not invented in 1979, when this film was made. Olny the B-1 was around.

[radioactiveshoes]

my friends grandpa was cheif enginer of b-1

[SDamon07]

And that's why the B-1 was built

[Primorsky]

B1 is subsonic plane that more vulnerable than russian supersonic strategic bomber Tu-160

[pittbulldawg]

And then Northrop answered the call by building the B-2. And then we got the F-117. And then we got the F-22s for any incomming bombers.

[wizword]

The B-52 is slated to remain in service until 2040! That guy at the end there had no idea, did he? :D

[DrMortician]

You nailed it. The finest plane ever built.

[Harlentropolis]

It really seems like this in an advertisement for a small number of military tech companies like whoever would contract that mx beast.

[Rocketmechanic]

Fine, just remember the US has a history of things in work unknown to the outside. Example F-117, B2.

[rstora01]

B52;s carry cruise missiles which are considered stand off weapons (launched far from target)

however they rely on satellites for guidance

[SummitAP]

All the cruise missiles have INS backup guidance. Most nuclear cruise missiles also use RADAR or LIDAR terrain mappipng and following so they don't rely on sats at all.

[Kalash47ussr]

But wouldn't the bombers be easy targets for our MIGs? Or can they fly high enough?

[PashaGolikov]

no, they can not. Ne mogut.

[Kalash47ussr]

US bombers fly higher than MIGs? Damn, what about or bombers, I need a report!

[ludocrat]

Vulnerable to nuclear tipped SAMs (which would have been used by the Russians.

[EasyEs]

Which would have had effects not forsceen by the Russians on their Air Defense network. Looked good on paper but in truth it would have blinded at least temporarily communications etc

[ludocrat]

Very true. But the Russians didn't really join the dots after the Tsar Bomba test - the US did after Mike. That's what you get for ordering your scientists to do things rather than listening to their warnings. And you get defections (from the Soviet point of view). Well done the USA, I guess.

[Stefnir94]

To Kalash47ussr: Well, I once flew an F-14 up to 80.000 feet in a flight simulator...

[SummitAP]

The bombers would be mostly just launching cruise missiles before the MiGs could intercept. Otherwise, they would have to do low level penetration to avoid Russian RADAR and hope that the AEW planes didn't see them.

[fanofrhymeswithstar]

Some of those targets of the ALCMs and the SRAMs (not to mention the GLCMs, ICBMs, IRBMs and SLCMs and SLBMs) would be those airbases and EW radar and SAM sites. All SAC would need is to blast corridors in so their swarms of surviving bombers could successfully penetrate, and expend more of those standoff nuclear-tipped munitions or gravity weapons. But all this talk is all theory anyway. Thankfully it has never happened and hopefully wont.

[geoffck1969]

You are so pessimistic! Hopefully it DOES happen! I want a nuclear war on such scale that the survival of the human race is questionable.

[anisocoro]

but there would be long range interceptors as mig-31 and sukhois which could enter the "blastized" corridors and engage bombers

[fanofrhymeswithstar]

I doub that VERY much. One would have to look at the map and georgraphy of the former Soviet Union and the inventory of the PVO-Strany (and the locations of their airbases and AEW/SAM sites to see what I mean.

[jshabadoo]

America has great skills in developing startegic systems and weapons.

[bobdefalco]

Yes - the B52 are "very old aircraft" into 1995...yet they still work brilliantly.

Our BUFF crews kick serious butt. That is an awesome aircraft filled with talented people.

[PashaGolikov]

but it is useless against modern aircraft and modern defences.

Sure, it is nice bomber, but not by today's standards

[TalksWithDirt]

True, but the B-52 is only used after an airspace has been secured. B-52's flew into active SAM defended airspace in Europe (Kosovo), and the Mid East (Iraq '91,'03). So it can still evade a weapons lock. Can a B-52 be seen? Yes of course, but it still does a fine job of evading defenses against it and delivering its load.