I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that tens of billions of dollars have been spent solely to harness the thinking of really smart people on this strategic question.

So anything on an hn thread is lucky if it even rises to “glib”, but…

The problem with bombers is that they’re slow & vulnerable; you have to fly them over their targets.

The problem with submarines is they have to hide, which pulls against maintaining reliable communication. They’re also absurdly complex in engineering and operation, which means they may have vulnerabilities we haven’t thought of or can’t confidently mitigate.

Groud-based ICBM’s trade off these issues for the equally big issue of being immobile.

> You could probably make do with submarine, ship, and airplane based nuclear weapons?

So instead of the enemy nuking farm fields in North Dakota, they shoot more nukes at heavily-populated cities?

The article takes a bizarrely myopic view, with charts of fallout patterns that show only the land based silos they're complaining about getting nuked, as if removing them would remove the risk of fallout. If only we could be so lucky.

Those wouldn't solve the issues laid out in the article really, as those warheads still need to live somewhere while not aboard those platforms. They still generate waste, still cost money, etc, etc. Except for the random anecdote about construction-worker-driven-crime (???), anything short of complete disarmament wouldn't address the articles concerns.

And anyway, the silos are part of the nuclear triad[0], removing them is akin to partial disarmament which will never happen without unilateral agreement across all nuclear states.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad