Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Why the futuristic B-58 was useless before it even took to the sky..." video.

@jbradley8659 The correct answer is "the NUCLEAR TRIAD" of which the bomber force was a key component. The more the Soviets had to defend against the more it cost them and the eventual result vindicated the triad which is maintained to this day. In a nuclear exchange pilot lives don't matter, they're not even drama when millions are immolated. Bombers permit gestures that missiles do not. Instead of just considering hardware, read Herman Kahn and learn about how complex (and real) nuclear war theory and doctrine really are.
36
"Useless" is pure clickbait, ignoring the deterrent utility of the nuclear triad and why the manned bomber fleet existed and exists today. Not flying conventional combat missions is irrelevant to the strategic nuclear mission and the triad forces prospective opponents to defend against submarines, land-based systems, and the (much more technically diverse and more quickly EVOLVING) airborne systems which unlike the other two may be recalled. No study of nuclear bombers is complete without mentioning real nuclear war doctrine. Atmospheric testing proved limited nuclear war practical and did so by detonating the equivalent of a modest war above ground, much of it in the continental US! Hustler was suboptimal and nuclear doctrine evolved such that it was not worth keeping. The design, testing and operational experience gained OTOH paid off. Turns out the ideal "bomber" is a standoff weapons platform with a heavy payload (B-52 with nuclear ALCM etc during the first half of the Cold War which never ended).
3