demon@desire.wright.edu (01/23/91)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu In article <1991Jan19.033344.416@cbnews.att.com>, tborge@viewlogic.com (Tom Borge) writes: > > Why isn't the United States using B-1 bombers in Iraq? Are they grounded? > Temporarily or permanently? I seem to recall a number of crashes one or > two years > ago, were the B-1s grounded because of those crashes? Just curious. > That would be a factor if not for the most important reason: The B-1's are the air portion of the nuclear triad. It would be pretty foolhardy to loose on leg to the traid due to SAM fire while they were carpet bombing troops. That's what the B-52's are for. You would have seen a lot less F-111's in the gulf also if we were still in a cold war situation. They are the primary dual-role (nuclear and conventional) fighter-bombers for the European theater of operatoins. The US always keeps it's nuclear force out of conventional warfare, and does not commit dual-role planes unless nuclear war is unlikely or in extreme emergencies. As the cold war is over, the F-111's can be used freely for conventional strikes. Brett bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil