Also consider that the development of conventional weapons has reduced the need to use nukes in many instances.
Iirc, for all the talk from Bush and Thatcher and Major and others leading up to Desert Storm, using nukes to respond to an Iraqi chemical attack was off the table.
The contingency plan was to use F-111s with GBU-15s to blow the Tigris and Euphrates dams and put Baghdad under 10’ of water. Those GBUs were ultimately used to close off those pipes Hussein had opened up to dump oil into the Persian Gulf.
Consider a hypothetical military conflict with China where they nuke a US carrier. Or at least try to. Why pop off a nuke in return when a couple B-2s with MOPs can drop the Three Gorges Dam? “Yes, we were within our rights to respond with nukes, and were fully prepared to, but decided to show great restraint in the face of unwarranted Chinese escalation”.
This sums up conventional warfare perfectly. As long as you aren’t faced with destruction and only one nuke is being used during a war. You can escalate and launch more nukes. Causing the enemy to escalate, and launch more. Or you can respond conventionally with a massive blow like you hypothetically present.
The only time nuclear warheads are needed are for deterrence. There is no conventional reason beyond deterrence for needing 4800. IMHO. You will never use them beyond one or two scenarios, and you better hope to God the enemy doesn’t use a bunch of theirs and you have to respond in kind, because in that scenario, everybody loses.