Contrary to the alarmists, I am convinced that the “cold war” history, and the India-Pakistan military confrontation history shows that THE IDEA OF “MAD” (mutual assured destruction) works in convincing nations to avoid a confrontation that would actually render nuclear MAD likely. What looks to the “arms control” crowd as MAD, actually works, in my mind, to prevent MAD.
Without the mutual response to a build up on one side (the Russians have been updating their nuclear missiles for years) MAD becomes more likely - by one side thinking the disadvantages are no longer mutual. But a mutual build up makes MAD less likely. Trump is telling Russia that Russia will have no advantages with its improved missiles. His actions will help restore a respect for U.S. forces that Russia has been losing. That will be a deterrent to MAD, not a cause for it to happen.
If you don’t want MAD to happen, make MAD the likely result of anyone starting a nuclear confrontation. Appease yourself as a great power out of any nuclear deterrent and the likelihood of a tyrant with nukes using them to oppose you increases.
China also hoped to prevail simply by having non-nuclear “area denial” weapons, that would keep our forces out of range. Other nations would then have to capitulate to China, without American protection.
These types of weapons could deny the same areas to the Chinese. The USA could provide the capability to the nations in the region.
The South China Sea could quickly become a shooting gallery for China’s one or two carriers, and its man-made islands, sitting ducks.