Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
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.
My statement was not my opinion that was and is the official Air Force position on their reorganization of forces. My opinion is you can "dedicate" a certain number of forces of any type to a Strategic Mission and say that they are Strategic Bombers ,but it has nothing to do with a type of Plane. What if a SF type infiltrated into the designated Strategic target with a suitcase Nuke is he not a Strategic bomber? Especially if his sole mission was to prepare for and train for nothing but that. I believe it is the dedication of certain assets to certain missions that makes them or doesn't make them Strategic.