if they cant land with why were they armed with it in the first place?
Are you saying the US dumps hundreds of thousands of expensive bombs and missiles in the ocean every year for no ggood reason?
Many aircraft, from military bombers to airliners, cannot land at the same weight at which they took off. Landing gear limitations, etc. They were armed with it when they took off because they were training, practicing dropping bombs on targets, so that in war they can HIT their targets. That is why they were "armed with it in the first place."
If you don't train, you cannot fight & win. If you drop bombs without training, many more of those will miss the target, instead causing "collateral damage" by hitting civilians or friendlies.
Are you saying the US dumps hundreds of thousands of expensive bombs and missiles in the ocean every year for no good reason?
No, I did not and am not "saying the US dumps hundreds of thousands of expensive bombs and missiles in the ocean every year for no good reason?" I have not idea as to the actural number of bombs jettisoned, but would guess that the number is far, far less than "hundreds of thousands". As to your "no good reason" comment, they are dumped for safety. Avoiding the injury or death of a pilot in accident caused by landing too heavy seems like a "good reason", as does preventing the loss of an aircraft. A carrier landing accident caused by excess ordnance very quickly gets very, very expensive, in terms of lives lost. And equipment.
Check YouTube for "carrier landing accidents", then consider what the addition of two 500# bombs might have done to the situation.
BTW, if the range had been clear, those bombs would have been dropped on land, exploded and their cost expended anyway. Many times, the cost/benefit analysis says jettison them.
Oh, the Mk-82 500lb "expensive bomb"? Unit cost $268.50 (in 2000)
Sometimes, you have to dump very expensive hardware in the sea.