![]() | About Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective? |
![]() |
| ![]() |
| View Poll Results :What was the most effective part of the Nuclear Triad that protected the United States during the Fo | |||
| Strategic Bomber Force | | 0 | 0% |
| Land Based Missiles | | 0 | 0% |
| Sea Launched Missiles | | 8 | 72.73% |
| They werent needed: Our regular forces ensured the peace. | | 0 | 0% |
| All were needed: All were equal in effectiveness | | 3 | 27.27% |
| Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| | |
| | #1 |
| | Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective? infoJust a honest opinion is fine..but state your reasons for your opinion please. As always...meanys will be rooted out...by the roots. My contributions: The most effective part of the Triad was...the sea launched missiles from submarines. That underseas fleet of moving silos made more headaches for the russians to try and track than anything else our forces had to offer. And they just got better...as the years went by. Yep..it was the Submarine launched Missiles! “If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down.”— General James H. Doolittle, USAAF |
![]() | |
| |
| | #2 |
| |
Submarines especially,they have that manuverability that is needed and posibility to cover in deep sea,idk if you remember during the cold war four russian submarines with nuclear torpedoes came from russia trought the pacific ocean undetected to cuba.My point is that typhoon type submarine can deliver its WMD's from north pole everywhere in the world.So im sticking on to submarines
|
| | #3 | |
| | Re: Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective? infoQuote:
"It is not supreme excellence to fight and conquer in all your battles, It is supreme excellence if you break the enemy's resistance without fighting." Sun Tzu, the Art of War | |
| | #4 |
| |
I would have to go with the Ballistic Missile Subs as well, although you use present tense, as all three legs are still operational and needed. I don't think the Soviets were ever effective in tracking any of the USN or UK Boomers for any length of time. Most of what I have read indicates that any tail by a Soviet sub lasted only a few hours - as compared to the days and weeks that the USN attack subs were able to tail the Soviet missile boats. I'd rather be a Soldier with a mule and mountain gun, than Knight of old, with spurs of gold, or Roman, Greek or Hun. For when there's trouble brewing, they always send for me! Mortui Non Mordent - Celeritas Et Accuratio |
| | #5 |
| |
Well im just adding baggage but yea the subs.. They held the most amount of nukes and could ride a russians subs ass intill they felt the need to stop without them having a clue. They would actually play games with them and ping them to let them know that we were sitting right on their asses. Just to let them know who the boss was. |
| | #6 |
| |
Agree with the rest of you, Subs! (and the fear of the Norwegian Field Artillery of course |
| | #7 |
| |
Mainly sea lunch Mobile platforms, but all played a big role.
|
| | #8 |
| |
I'm gonna say sea launched missles. They would give less reaction time if they were used.
Whatever was sufficient to get us to this point is insufficient to get us any further. |
| | #9 |
| |
Im going to say bombers because it gives us time
|
| | #10 |
| |
The submarine fired missiles were safer than bombers (no anti-aircraft network to worry about), but capable of launch at closer proximity to the target. Also capable of firing both Balistic, ICBM, or Cruise Missiles. That'd be my vote.
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!! "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase |
![]() |