What's the best doctrine for nuclear bombing, gotta go fast or slowpoke ?

In Tu-95's case, it's called cruise missile spam from 3000 km away.

>using planes for nuclear delivery. Lmao.
The only way planes could make an impact is through tactical strikes. Big bombers are completely obsolete once ICBM's were developed.

Attached: 1497985643294.jpg (1202x1492, 218K)

This user is correct. Bombers dropping gravity bombs became obsolete by the mid 1960s.
Air launched cruise missiles gave them a new strategic use, and for those you just need long range bomb trucks, not supersonic nap of the earth penetration bombers like the original B-1 concept.
The B-2 was going to be revolutionary in the Cold War nuclear dance because theoretically it would allow a zero warning first strike on the Soviet Union.
Bombs could be falling on Moscow and nobody would know until the flash, no missile launch detection by satellite, no radar tracking bombers or re-entry vehicles.
But by the time the B-2 was ready, the Soviets were packing up the game, so it never really changed much.

Everything because its the most sure way

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 102K)

Think of it this way:

The Fast Boi is for:
>Your enemy is close
>Your enemy is winning
>You need to make them glow like really quick

The Slow Boi is for:
>Shit has hit the fan
>The world as we know it won’t be the same tomorrow (if there’s gonna even be a tomorrow)
>You wanna make your enemies home country glow since they’re trying to make yours glow

>not using SLAM's to cause maximum nuclear contamination
pleb

Attached: 1561075696405.png (613x469, 274K)

But why wouldn't you use an ICBM or a fast boi from the start?

Nuclear supersonic cruise missiles

Our ground base missiles are warhead magnets. It works out since they are in the middle of nowhere, but few of them will survive long enough to launch. They draw most of the warheads away from other targets. Subs are where it's at for actually striking.

Spotted the belkan

us army had unnironically a plan that consisted to parachute one SF operator with a big backpack containing a nuclear weapon, he would try to get as close to the enemy hq as he can until he blew himself up

Nuclear bombers are a pointless part of the strategic triad, and better serve an operational or tactical role for things like sinking battlegroups with nuclear cruise missiles.

Those slow underwater ones that go undetectable before exploding near a shore and causing nuclear tsunamis

Give Stefan a tac briefcase and have him chase down the enemy

Nukes don't real

Attached: 1567387414621m.jpg (990x1024, 153K)

Doesn't matter none of them are out running a missile and ICBM's beat both of them.
An air launched nuke might work, but other wise these things are getting shot down once they are in range regardless

Whatever has the ability to reach the target.

How did anyone expect B-52 or Tu-95 bombers to reach their targets in a nuclear war between the US and the USSR?

this

the triad
air, land, and sea

Bombers are second strike platforms, all the fast in the world happened with ICBMs. Bombers exist for mopping up and for payback, they don't really have to be fast.

You misspelled 9M730

permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-16-20591

suicide bombing for Israel

Attached: 1565221484654.jpg (460x562, 78K)

Those have already been launched at high value targets. Now comes the stomping into the ground part.

And in the next 3-4 decades, Space. Nuclear Square

They didn't, that's why they adopted stand-off weapons later on. In any case intercepting high subsonic bombers isn't as easy as you think. Some would inevitably get through and do their work.

Because ICBM launch sites are known. Nuclear tipped SLBM? Those fuckers come out of nowhere. ICBMs are the haymaker, but its subs that poke out the eyes and cover their ears in the hopes that they'll be disoriented and die quickly

Also, you take C&C for granted. Defending a huge country like USA or USSR in 50's or 60's or 70's was a nightmare. Coordinating hundreds of airplanes is a nightmare even today. That's why systems like SAGE were built.

So are airbases and they can be hardened less vs pressure. They're prime targets for depressed trajectory SLBMs.

I don't really understand why would anyone go for a slow bomber.

You need a fast, stealth bomber, with a fast and stealth missile.

There's just no way slow bomber with gravity bombs can reach their target.
The " saturation " argument is bs as you would just saturate even better with proper fighter planes.
If your nuclear raid requires too much air refuelling you should consider using SLBMs instead.
Also, big slow bombers don't fit on aircraft carriers, where tactical nukes would be the most handy

bombers like the tu-95 don't drop bombs, they are almost exclusively cruise missile carriers which can be nuclear