Since the 1960s, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have been a central element of America's nuclear triad. In recent years, however, ICBMs have come under increasing attack. Prominent critics charge they are unnecessary for deterrence, they undermine nuclear strategic stability, and the cost of modernization is unaffordable. This article argues that these criticisms are misguided. Far from unnecessary, ICBMs possess a number of distinctive attributes that contribute to core objectives of US nuclear strategy, including the deterrence of nuclear attack, assurance of allies, and achieving US objectives should deterrence fail. Moreover, the argument that ICBMs are destabilizing rests on a logical contradiction and is inconsistent with the empirical evidence. Finally, while the cost of ICBM modernization is substantial, it is also affordable.This more careful analysis demonstrates that ICBMs contribute to US national security and should remain a core part of America's strategic deterrent.