Which part of the USA Nuclear Triad was More Effective?

[Mark Conley]

Ok Cold war heros...we dont tend to think about it as much anymore...but of the three Nuclear Parts of the Triad (Airplanes that delivered Bombs, Land based Missiles in Silos, or Submarine Launched Missiles) which of these were the most effective at keeping the former Soviet Union at bay?

Just 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!

 

[Marksman]

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

 

[1217]

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!

I think you're right. The great thing about the subs was (is) that if you attack the US, you know that even if you level the country completely before the US can react, the subs will level your country anyway.

 

[Gunner13]

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.

 

[Big_Z]

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.

 

[Redleg]

Agree with the rest of you, Subs!

(and the fear of the Norwegian Field Artillery of course )

 

[Uncle_Sam]

Mainly sea lunch Mobile platforms, but all played a big role.

 

[silent driller]

I'm gonna say sea launched missles. They would give less reaction time if they were used.

 

[airmanpatroler]

Im going to say bombers because it gives us time

 

[godofthunder9010]

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.

 

[Damien435]

Why no love for our nuke cannons? I remember hearing about this, we had like one giant artillery gun in Turkey that we kept movign around and it supposedly caused a lot of headaches for the Soviets because it could set up in a matter of hours and hit many cities or punch a hole in the Russian lines. I think it was called Davy Crocket or Daniel Boone, something like that, or those could have been the "mortar" nukes they are talking about.