Yes, they do.
We can put an ICBM anywhere in the world within 29 minutes. Neither bombers or sub can do that.
ICBMs can cover much of the Earth, but not all of it. The U.S. submarine fleet, consisting of multiple mobile missile fields, can. Submarines can be positioned closer to the target, and can thus put a warhead on it faster than an ICBM (not clear why you think shaving minutes is so important though).
Bombers an Subs can more easily have the comms disrupted.
Not at all clear that this true today, with modern communication systems. Silos have serious problems with communications when warheads land on top of them.
Bomber and Sub will hve an active defense targeting them. Bombers and sub are tracked by other actors the various theaters.
What effective "active defense" do you imagine exists in the world today against the U.S. SLBM fleet? They patrol a couple of thousand miles off the coast, if they need to, and there is no effective anti-submarine force in the world to target them. The Russian submarine fleet is less than 1/4 the size that it was under the Soviet Union.
You may have heard of the U.S. carrier battle groups of which the U.S. has 11, versus none for the rest of the world. SLBMs have the option of operating from the protective umbrella of battle groups, which makes the notion of them being effectively target truly ridiculous.
And the bombers have cruise missiles with a range of 1500 miles, so the effectiveness of active defense against them is questionable.
Sorry you are grasping at ancient, worn-out straws trying to prop up the case for the ICBM fleet.