theyre all warheads

:/

<:Facepalm:592465521191157761>

Thousands

to launch a nuclear device it would have to get right above the target

The Valkyrie was decomissioned, and it was the only specialized nuclear bomber, so you're not exactly *wrong* per say

<:maxautism:596801011109330944>

through whatever AA they have

You have to pave the way first, even for b2s. Take out radar, and anti air, open the door.

However we still have plenty of nuclear-capable bombers

you wouldnt use a nuclear device on an opponent who was literally incapable of AA

pretty much all of them are

theyre for use against advanced powers

and seriously, you seem to think anti-air is infalliable

what are you gonna nuke iraq?

Yes

its not infallible but it makes a bomber less ideal than a submarine

It very , very much is not this impenitrable wall

i was under the imprssion you used nukes against enemies you want to fucking vaporize

or icbm

Seems to think weapon systems have only one purpose

NUKE ISRAEL

@Sectator Pragmaticam Lex of which none exist

let me remind you that there hasnt been a nuclear attack on the planet since 1945

Anyways this is a really stupid argument, I'm gonna go back to trying to figure out if the B2 can land on a Nimitz.

wild weasel F-16 are for hunting down same sites..

it cant

well the convo seemed to be about dropping nukes from airplanes, which is also 100% theoretical since icbms became a thing

<@&462258424323899397>

i know

@Sectator Pragmaticam Lex thats what i told them

when they went

WELL AKSHUALLY

Why are you pinging all the mods Burger

what's the problem? can't nerds talk theory?

I am still in the chat?

the fact that nuclear bombs only detonate after being armed and are thus recoverable by the enemy if the plane is shot down

is another massive malus against atomic bombs

The picture