Yes, I'm aware of the value of having multiple weapons systems to do a critical job. But that doesn't mean that every new bomber must be designed to nuke Moscow. Let's make the bomber version of a 747 for when we need to attack Afghanistan or ISIS, something that we can crank out cheaply and is already proven and reliable. Then we can have another project to try and make a bomber that can hit high-value well-defended targets. Or at least decide how many billions of dollars we want to spend for a redundant weapon system meant for a deterrence mission.
You are pretending that "nuke Moscow" is some kind of specialized mission requiring specialized planes that can't be used for anything else, even though the B-52 itself is a glaring counterexample.
"Carry a heavy load of weapons anywhere in the world while having a decent chance of penetrating air defenses" is a better description of what a bomber does, but that doesn't lend itself to the kind of facile sneering that was in your original post, does it?
