Vanechka
Auto-translated
In general, there is an opinion that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to the outbreak of a global conflict, and I support it. No matter how successful and powerful the first nuclear strike against one of the states may be, no matter how perfect the defense of the attacking state may be, they will receive a retaliatory strike, and it will be no less colossal, because Russia and the United States still have a very large nuclear potential.
"Under the current treaties on the reduction of strategic offensive arms, within which the coordinates of silo-based launchers and the number of land-based missiles have been reduced to 489 (as of 2007; expert estimates for 2012: 220–260 ICBMs[5]), and the remaining 9 strategic SSBNs are based[6], the deployment of 5000–20000[7][1][8](2007 – more than 6000; of which only 350 with nuclear warheads[5]) of these missiles on special ships and SSBNs adopted for service and intended for operation from shallow Arctic seas[7][1] in conjunction with the deployed system for detecting SSBNs and the national missile defense system being created[6][1] makes it possible to launch a preemptive strike that will guaranteed destroy Russia's nuclear arsenal.[7][9][10] Due to the minimal use of low-power (5 kt) nuclear warheads[7][6] and underground explosion charges (RNEP)[5], the consequences of the so-called nuclear winter are eliminated. The threat of using (blackmail) strategic nuclear forces and bribery (effectively used in Iraq) makes it possible to block the retaliatory strike of the remaining 10–20 missiles at the level of the enemy's command, without using missile defense."
In other words, the whole trick is that, according to some estimates, it is possible to launch an asymmetric nuclear strike. And how much of this stuff (that does not fall under the agreements on the reduction of strategic offensive arms) the Americans produce per year, you can read in the same link.
Do you understand?