What makes a intercontinental ballistic missile force a particularly good tool?

 "The answer, say intercontinental ballistic missiles' (ICBMs') proponents, is threefold. One argument is that the ICBM force is the most "responsive" leg of the triad. Bombers can be recalled once launched, but take longer to get into the air and reach their targets. Submarines are easy to hide and can get closer to targets, but it is harder to communicate with a submerged boat. By contrast, ICBMs can be launched within minutes.

That level of alertness horrifies critics, who see it as an invitation to nuclear calamity. But it means that ICBMs could be used to strike enemy missiles being readied for use, or launched before incoming enemy missiles landed. "Without American ICBMs," notes a report by the Hudson Institute, a think-tank, "an adversary would need to strike only five targets (three bomber and two submarine bases) to eliminate most of the US nuclear force."" [1]

 In a word, we buy. As soon as we stop spoiling the gang of Queen Martha, spouse of Gabrielius Landsbergis,  with golden spoons, we will start collecting money. What do you say? ICBM? After all, we need to stop fighting the wars only with the golden spoons.

1. "Nukes of hazard; Biden's nuclear dilemma." The Economist, 27 Feb. 2021, p. 20(US).