[C19fan]

The main benefit of land based ICBM was they were more accurate than SLBMs and bomber based weapons creating a credible counterforce option. But the performance of SLBMs have improved to the point they can attack military targets, for example, ICBM sites.

[NonValueAdded]

I prefer the triad but if they must go, let them go ballistically.

[Paladin2]

I gladly spend $10/yr to be able to nuke NORK or Mecca at the drop of a hat.

[struggle]

Let’s just dispose of them, 100 meters above Mecca and Tehran.

Could you imagine that? We might have peace for a few generations.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think this premise is wrong headed.

[Gaffer]

I distrust anyone that suggests we decommission ANY part of our TRIAD in the name of “War is Boring,” frankly.

I am not willing to give up the ONE sure deterrent we have to remove a billion plus insane Muslims from this planet should our liberal ways get too cowardly.

Decommission HELL! UPGRADE and ENHANCE.....

[KC_for_Freedom]

This is pure unilateral disarmament tripe. The fact is that while we have nations who arm with these weapons of mass destruction, we must also have them. Whether we use them or not is not really their purpose. In fact, it has been said that if we do use them they have failed in their mission. But since their widespread development, they have not been used. That seems to be something worth understanding. Can we reduce the cost? Maybe. Can we afford to allow the current systems to degrade in reliability without refurbishment? I believe a certain maintenance cost is also part of the program.

[KC_for_Freedom]

This is pure unilateral disarmament tripe. The fact is that while we have nations who arm with these weapons of mass destruction, we must also have them. Whether we use them or not is not really their purpose. In fact, it has been said that if we do use them they have failed in their mission. But since their widespread development, they have not been used. That seems to be something worth understanding. Can we reduce the cost? Maybe. Can we afford to allow the current systems to degrade in reliability without refurbishment? I believe a certain maintenance cost is also part of the program.

[Roger Kaputnik]

It’s better to have them and not need them rather than need them and not have them.

I say we keep them.

[paddles]

The “War is Boring” blog is a bunch of little wannabes who think their opinion counts for something.

[CodeToad]

The same idiot probably thinks we should pay $2 billion for abortions.

[RayChuang88]

That's why the Russians put a lot of their ICBM's on mobile launchers--fixed launching sites won't survive a nuclear exchange, but mobile launchers have a greater chance to survive once the missile is launched. If we had not canceled the Midgetman missile, it's likely most of our ICBM's would be on small, mobile launchers by now.

[IronJack]

There are a lot of government costs that I’d see cut before I’d sacrifice our ICBM arsenal.

[bubbacluck]

$2Billion well spent.

[Reno89519]

Send them to Mecca.

[gettinolder]

No thank you.

[DannyTN]

Give up no deterrent or war capability until that capability has been completely eclipsed in all capacities.

[BitWielder1]

It would be like having bullets but no gunpowder.

[sphinx]

Because only the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and soon Iranians can afford, and be trusted with, ICBM’s ....

[RinaseaofDs]

If we can spare 30 billion for Iran, surely 2 billion for national security is less than the cost, percentage-wiss, as a restaurant tip.

[grobdriver]

we still spend $2 billion a year just in operations and support costs for the U.S. ICBM force

We'll pay those service men and women anyway - unless they have another RIF.
They might as well be doing something productive, like scaring the bejeebers out of Iran and people like this.