>>64212490
Don't get me wrong, every part of the triad is important, but the "strategic bomber" part of the triad has been an obsolete contingency for decades now. ICBMs offer first strike capability, submarine launched offers second strike capability, but nuclear arm bombers are just "a nice traditional thing to have". They have conventional utility but can no longer sneak through enemy defenses due to satellites and advanced radars. Even stealth bombers aren't completely invisible.
Again, all parts of the triad are important, but if you absolutely had to cut one part of it - you'd choose strategic bombers every time.
Now, saying all that, can you imagine what the current state of the Russian sub and ICBMs are? I think that's the real problem nobody is talking about because it's not obvious.