SSBNs insured both nuclear retaliation and the navy's status

Ballistic-missile submarines combined nuclear deterrence with competition over technological status. The argument here questions whether the United States or Soviet Union needed them solely to survive an attack, given the difficulty of destroying every silo and bomber base across such large territories before retaliation. Expanding land-based forces would still require remote infrastructure and place nuclear weapons near unwilling communities. For the navy, SSBNs also protected an institutional role and supplied another contest over who had the largest or most capable system. Britain and France receive a different assessment because their smaller territories make the case for a dispersed submarine deterrent stronger.