We already have enough nukes.
It would be better to spend the money on security measure research, anti-terror attack training, grant money for crowd protection and public building structural modifications, etc.
The British used to pay their soldiers extra money if they learned critical languages.
No we don't. We cannot realistically say that they all go BANG.
We have to infer that some won't leave the silo, some won't separate, some won't get into orbit, some will break, and many other unforeseen circumstances.
THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO TEST our designs with live-fire exercises.
We can't have a true nuclear deterrent unless we can still have nukes in reserve in case anyone tries a "bolt from the blue" or "decapitation" or "counterforce" nuclear strike.
We rely too much on our SSBNs and our ICBMs are critically vulnerable. We have to have lots of reliable nukes in case the unthinkable happens, up until we figure out how to get rid of the damn things. The genie is out of the bottle, and I fear that Pakistan and North Korea won't give them up. Russia MIGHT, but after losing 100mm people in WWII, unlikely.
We also need to update our nuclear weapons for "micronukes" and clean enhanced radiation tactical nukes (neutron bombs). Technology has advanced light years, but we are stuck on, at best mid-to- late 1990s safety, security, guidance, etc.
It’s probably more about where they “ expand” to rather than how many.