Do you think America would let another first world country buy some of their strategic bombers?
>>28377706
No one else needs to circle the globe to drop bombs, so probably not.
>>28377706
>UK
Got rid of their own strat bombers, why would they want new ones? And second hand ones...
>France
They count on their missiles.
>Germany
Kek
>Japan
Muh constitution
>Taiwan
Banned from buying "offensive" weapons by Clinton or Bush number 1.
>Is there anyone else left?
They dont need it.
>>28377706
The UK is the only country that the US shares that nature of technology with. And they have no need of strategic bombers because of trident and pic related.
Dropping strings of bombs was redundant in 2001 and is even more so now. Typhoon and Tornado can deliver guided munitions faster, cheaper, and with just as much if not more accuracy than B2 and B52 respectively.
>>28377706
>>28377738
>>28378024
Britain is probably the only country it would be considered acceptable to sell them too, and as other anons have pointed out we have neither any notable need for them, and certainly not the budget to operate them, let alone the cost of buying and refurbishing spare aircraft that have been sat mothballed innadesert for a couple of decades.
So theoretically possible, incredibly unlikely to happen.
Why does the government hate us?
Why won't they sell to civilians? It's our's, we payed for it.
Considering nobody wants them, it doesn't matter one way or another.
doesn't really matter as no country would want to or need to
heck, i think the US is wasting time and money making the B3 and maintaining the legacy bombers
they should just focus on better missiles
the B3 better open up some sort of new paradigm when it comes to delivering ordnance or become multirole and have some other utility
otherwise it's a big fat waste and i wouldn't be surprised if the number of orders get significantly cut back
>>28377706
Britain or France would probably be allowed if they were interested. And Australia was allowed to buy F-111s, so they would probably be allowed SBs, too.
>>28379074
Unmanned bombers is where it's at, a huge bomber flying at 70,000 feet for days at a time, dropping ordnance with no need to think about crew survivability (oxygen, flight time ect).
>>28379074
>become multirole and have some other utility
Also I agree here, a stealth bomber (also possibly hypersonic) that can fly high enough could also work as a reconnaissance aircraft. Simply configure it to carry cameras instead of bombs.
>>28378003
Taiwan wasn't banned from having offensive weapons per se, but it was part of the agreement that they had with the US where US says that they have Taiwan's back and requires that the US supply Taiwan with defensive weapons.
And it was Carter
>>28383676
How does the treaty differentiate between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons?
>>28383689
You don't carpet bomb your own country, you bomb others. Hence, purely offensive weapon.
You don't send ballistic missiles to your own country, you send it to others. Hence, purely offensive weapon.
You don't send mid ranged cruise missiles for defensive purposes, hence, an offensive weapon.
But, Fighters, anti-ship misslies, AAMs,tanks, and etc can be used for defence. Hence, ''defensive'' weapons.
>>28383746
>You don't carpet bomb your own country, you bomb others. Hence, purely offensive weapon.
Bombers defend through deterrence and interdiction. If you destroy the enemy's runways, harbors, and logistics vehicles, then he can not longer attack you. And the mere threat of being bombed might be enough to stop him from trying in the first place.
>You don't send ballistic missiles to your own country, you send it to others. Hence, purely offensive weapon
Same deal, you use ballistic missiles to fuck up the enemy airbases and command structures so they can't attack you.
>>28383689
Basically it's subject to presidential and Congressional determination
>>28383850
Ahh.
>>28383850
So purely irrelevant?
