Why does the US still need ground based ICBMs?

Or lauch a preemptive strike against the silos or have a missile shield of some sort. I just think that missile silos make a country a bigger target.

They make the country a bigger target because they are so powerful and I doubt any country knows where all of the missile silos are in the US plus they would already be on the air before the enemies missiles hit.

Quote-
Or lauch a preemptive strike against the silos or have a missile shield of some sort. I just think that missile silos make a country a bigger target.

OK OK People. I can now see why the US is reluctant to give up it's ground based ICBMs. But personally, I still think all your nuclear weapons aboard ships, submarines, aircraft and any in other countries are more than enough to protect you from the dangers of a world with nuclear arms.

Sub based missiles have thier own pro's/con's as well. Spreading them around between land and sea makes it a little safer than keeping all of our eggs in one basket. In thory the surface Navy removed all of its nukes years ago when they got rid of the Nuclear tipped TLAM. The AF still has gravity bombs, but no longer keeps a ready alert bomber force on standby and Im not sure how long it would take to load the B-2's and B-1 with gravity bombs. The BUFF's are still nuclear capable, but to old to penatrate any resonable air defence system and could only carry standoff stuff.