I’m with you.
The fact that to disarm the US of a significant portion of our nuclear deterrent would require a relatively massive nuclear attack on our homeland (at least two warheads per each of the 400 hardened missile silos), instead of just two sub bases and three bomber bases, raises the threshold any potential adversary would have to cross to defeat us.
Not to mention that it would put Several other countries with a disarming first strike capability since the target list goes from over 400 to just 5 primary targets. On top of that, then Russia is relieved of obligating 800 warheads to our missile fields, about half their deployed treaty limited strategic Arsenal.
Of course some would say this doesn’t account for the few subs at sea or bombers aloft, but a technological breakthrough in Anti sub or air defense could, combined with missile defense, make nuclear conflict “winnable” and thus thinkable, diminishing deterrence.
400 hardened targets requiring at least two warheads each also blurs the line between “counterforce” nuclear strikes, where the intent is to spare the civilian population, and “counter value” , or all out thermonuclear war.
Again, having 400 targets on our homeland raises the stakes too high for any sort of successful outcome for any nuclear armed adversary.