[walrus01]

Liquid fueled launch vehicles aren't storable/able to be made ready at a moment's notice, unlike solids. Liquid fueled historical artifact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas

There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

[stickfigure]

> There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

Believe it or not, here in 2026, this is incorrect!

Those crazy Russians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU2_Lajner

UDMH + nitrogen tetroxide.

I would not want to be a Russian submariner. For all sorts of reasons.

[laughing_man]

To be fair, while these missiles are still in service they're obsolete and are slated for retirement the coming decade.

[stickfigure]

The most recent started service in 2014. They may in fact be obsolete but not because they are old by soviet standards.

[dmurray]

Do you need to be able to strike at a moment's notice?

For a proper MAD-based nuclear deterrence, yes, you want to be able to launch a massive retaliation while your enemies' missiles are still in the air. Submarine-launched missiles also require stable storage. But having first-strike capabilities, the ability to wipe out any city in the world in return for a few weeks' planning, seems like something militaries would find valuable.