Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
Not really, when the Air Forces deactivated the Strategic Air Command and reorganized there units it was because they had finally realized that there is no such thing as a Strategic Bomber or a Tactical bomber for that matter. There are just Bombers with differant ranges and payload capabilites but they are all Bombers. What you have are Missions (that could be considered either Strategic or Tactical) but ANY bomber including a guy with a car packed full of explosives could carry them out.
Let's not confuse things (assets/forces) with effects.

A bomber, in and of itself, is not an inherently strategic asset.

A bomber which drops a nuclear device, well, that tends to have a strategic impact.

The original conception of a strategic bomber was that of an aircraft which was designed to go after targets which would yield strategic effects. For example, the B-1 was designed to penetrate Soviet airspace (integrated air defense threat) and deliver a nuclear payload - a strategic mission if I ever saw one.

So, we can generally associate certain forces with certain effects at every level of war (ends, ways, and means...IF you believe in that voodoo), however, that does not preclude the use of those forces for other missions.

A primarily tactical asset can have a strategic effect. The opposite is true, though common sense says that would be a waste of resources.