>Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. This is just wrong. We're talking about ballistic mi

>Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. This is just wrong. We're talking about ballistic missiles here, not cruise missiles. There isn't a spot on the face of the earth that can't be nuked by a sub from a safe distance. >Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Also mostly wrong. Only a handful of countries have any defense at all against an IRBM, those defenses only cover a tiny portion of their respective territory, and are both unreliable and relatively easily defeated. >Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. Why? If I launch a missile hundreds of miles from enemy ships they're not going to find me. The only thing I have to worry about is a nuclear response, which is a hazard for any platform conducting a first strike. >However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. If by "close" you mean 4000 miles. I guess it's a relative term. >Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles. Air defense that wasn't specifically designed to take down ballistic missiles won't have any effect at all. You're confusing ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. The former are an order of magnitude more difficult to deal with from a planning perspective.