Seriously, I really do think it is instructive to read the literature on this. Missiles in silos are counter balanced by a premptive strike on the silos, mobile missiles (like the MX) are pre-emptible as well but need more warheads, subs are a good counter threat but are tracked by other subs, and nuclear depth charges are able to clear lots of ocean fairly quickly, bombers with cruise missiles are countered with aircraft.
In all cases there are costs and visibility challenges like you have to open your silo doors before you shoot missiles and over the arctic missiles take 30 minutes to arrive. Bombers in the air can see fighters who might be tailing them but they cant be countered by ground based missiles easily, it literally goes on and on. Measure, counter-measure. Signal, counter signal. Threat, defensive capability.
Literally end of the world as we know it kind of stuff so a lot of time and effort has been invested in understanding it.
I've read a lot about it, and I just don't see the purpose of having bombers on alert these days. It seems like their capabilities are similar to those of ICBMs as an alert force, but worse in every way. They take longer to launch, they're easier to destroy, they're vulnerable for longer, they take longer to arrive, and they are much easier to intercept on the way.
Rather than lecturing me on how I should read more and question less, maybe you could tell me just what advantages bombers have over missiles as at alert force?
Excellent, it is safer to assume people haven't read up on the science and policy behind nuclear deterrence so I generally err on the side of caution. Given that ...
The discussion about putting the bombers back on alert is driven by discussions to not renew New START[1]. As you know the air 'leg' of the nuclear trident counters the simultaneous elimination of the the strategic missile forces and the submarine forces by an adversary. One can estimate the number of warheads necessary for that to occur, and while we stay under the lower limit of that estimate there is surety that the bombers would be superfluous. In the event that New START does not renew (2021) or it is pulled out of early, it takes a while to recover the strategic bomber fleet to full readiness status. Training, people, etc. Some of that can be 'short circuited' by pulling retired (but still trained) individuals back into active duty.
You also know that SAC air bases are located such that they can launch (when they are on alert) in less time than it takes for a submarine launched cruise missile to get there and destroy the base. Those bombers would have the capability to destroy our likely adversary. Further you can launch bombers in DEFCON 2 in anticipation of an action which signals your readiness to fight without committing to wholesale destruction of the planet.
You also know that the threats that stand between the bombers and their targets have counters in place to insure that their mission (the destruction of the adversary that just killed off the US) would likely be successful.
They are, and pretty much always have been, the "revenge" team.
What kind of attack could take out ICBMs but would be unable to take out bombers? You say that bombers on alert could launch in less time than it takes for an incoming weapon to destroy the base, but surely the same is true of ICBMs.
Adding bomber bases to the list of targets the enemy must destroy makes their life more difficult, but it seems like the difference would be small. There are, what, half a dozen or so bomber bases you'd have to destroy? One warhead each should do it. My understanding is that ICBM silos are sturdy enough to require a nearly direct hit to destroy them, so you'd need hundreds of warheads to destroy those.
The ability to launch bombers and then change (or cancel) their mission en route is super useful, but that seems separate from the alert role. If you want to put nuclear bombers in the air to put the fear of God into your adversary, you don't need them to be on a five-minute alert (or whatever the actual time will be).
Since you've read up on this your aware that at the height of the cold war both the Soviet Union and the US possessed enough strategic weapons to obliterate the other country. Further, the premptive use of such weapons would leave the other country unable to respond. That lead to a dangerously unstable system that more than once nearly triggered WWIII.
In an effort to return to sanity both countries agreed to bilateral reductions in strategic arms. The point of which was to reduce the number of warheads on strategic weapons (ICBMs) to make such a pre-emptive strike unlikely to succeed. The next step of moving back from the brink of annihilation was to limit the number of warheads in submarines, bombers and medium range missiles. By the end of the cold war both sides had reduced (and verified) that their respective stocks of nuclear warheads was at a level such that neither side was able to preemptively destroy the other, and entering into a conflict could be more controlled/restrained because there would be significant and incontrovertible evidence of first use while the victim would retain significant response capability. These were perhaps the most important treaties negotiated and executed in the 20th century. And have generally kept the chains on that horrific capability.
If New START is not renewed, and we see a build up in nuclear arms again, then it is possible that we see an adversary (or allied adversaries) who get to the point that they can take out all of the strategic capability of the US. If that is likely to occur, then the first step to combat it is to resurrect the bomber force requiring your adversary to expend more warheads to counter all more potential delivery systems. And the typical hawkish policy is to try to keep the number of delivery systems and warheads ahead of your worst cast threat.
In any event, it is the "wrong direction" we need to go if we wish to avoid killing everyone.
So the idea of putting bombers on alert is to make it more difficult for the enemy to carry out a successful preemptive strike. But how? Bombers aren't harder to destroy, and they're clustered together, so the number of additional warheads needed is small. Is it just about requiring the enemy to use 1-2% more warheads in a preemptive strike, or is there something else to it?
Accurate SLBMs, possibly on depressed trajectories. Russia didn't have these in numbers at the end of the cold war, now they do. They have even added GLONASS guidance to their ballistic missiles, which is worrying, because it means that they care about accuracy while GLONASS is still working, i.e. in a counterforce first strike.
Given the time it may take to validate and characterize a launch warning, have the message reach the President, have him make a decision, relay the message through STRATCOM, retarget the missiles (assuming we're still detargeted), and launch, you're talking at least 10-15 minutes from warning to launch. The Russians have missiles that might arrive faster than that. If bombers on the ground are maintained at a high enough level of alert, they can be launched at the very first warning as a precaution, before any irrevocable decision has been made.
That makes some sense. Do the numbers work out, though? You could launch bombers on a less certain warning, but they'll take longer to get far enough away to be safe.
Nothing to do with START. It's all about the NK war. Do you also believe the story that they recalled 1000 retired pilots due to shortages in recruiting?
And that this weeks evacuation "drill" was already scheduled?
The only situation I can think of bombers like the B-52 (non deep strike bombers) being practical is against an enemy without serious air defenses. Think Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc... Perhaps as a retaliatory strike against non conventional attacks with WMDs like chemical and nuclear attacks via container ships and terrorism.
The B-52s don't carry bombs anymore, they carry cruise missiles. They drop off eight of em about 1000 miles from the target and turn around. It is still very questionable whether the AGM-86 is viable penetrating Russian airspace, but at least they have eight times as many targets to deal with.
... Unless the silos are attacked by Submarine launched ballistic missiles using depressed trajectories as part of a neutralising/decapitation first strike.
See it's the complicated, many possible options, nature of war planning that makes stuff like this much less black and white.
Whose submarines are you thinking of that could destroy all of the US ground-based missile launch facilities in a first strike?
The war planning based around what you describe assumed the Soviet submarine fleet, yes?
Are you worried about Russia, China ("the Type 094s noisiness would make it difficult for it to reach and maintain patrol areas where it could strike at the contiguous United States"), or India?
In all cases there are costs and visibility challenges like you have to open your silo doors before you shoot missiles and over the arctic missiles take 30 minutes to arrive. Bombers in the air can see fighters who might be tailing them but they cant be countered by ground based missiles easily, it literally goes on and on. Measure, counter-measure. Signal, counter signal. Threat, defensive capability.
Literally end of the world as we know it kind of stuff so a lot of time and effort has been invested in understanding it.