Not happening, B-2s could do the same thing to your first strike missiles.
In fact, I would argue that they can do a much better job.
"First Strike Missiles" are actually not all that effective against most hardened military targets. They are either too inaccurate (ballistic missiles), or simply can not carry enough ordinance to be used against anything other than soft targets (cruise missiles).
That is why when going after hardened targets, the weapon of choice is still aircraft. They can carry significantly more ordinance, and can place it on target much more accurately than any missile.
Want to hit a runway or aircraft in the open, battlefield logistical depots and things like that, missiles are actually pretty damned good. They can be fired from a significant distance away, and even a "near miss" on targets like that can cause significant damage. Especially against something like a fuel or ordinance depot, where the sympathetic detonations can actually cause a hell of a lot more damage than the ordinance delivered itself can do.
However, to launch an attack on a hardened target, you have to replace that with human eyes overhead able to actually deliver either the significantly more powerful explosives, or able to guide in the ordinance with pin point targeting.
I still remember the first time I arrived at Ali Al Salem Air base in Kuwait. For those that do not know, that is the main air base of the Kuwait Air Force, and was occupied by Iraq in 1990. And one of their proudest features was a series of defensive bunkers for their fighters that had been built by France just a few years before.
And after Iraq occupied the base, they started to use those bunkers to protect their own fighters. Not that it did any good, the US systematically took them all out with bunker buster ordinance delivered by fighters.
The bunkers are still used, but now as maintenance facilities. But I remember looking in awe the first time I landed there, and seeing row after row of bunkers, each with a single bomb strike destroying it.
