Moreover, Russia is developing new ICBMs and improving both accuracy and warhead survivability (along with a host of other new nuclear capable delivery systems), while the US is relying on old ICBM tech - land based is the oldest, followed closely with sea based.
Russia has had anti-ICBM tech for decades - mostly relying on small nuclear warheads, but has now deployed SA-500s country-wide and is certainly working on an SA-600. Currently Russia is looking to add to the land mobile ICBM carriers by reinstating its railroad mobile launch program.
The US only has SM-3s which are in very limited supply and only sea based. (The SM3 development budget was severely slashed to $7 million or so). The US neither has nor is working on anything comparable to the SA 500 (or SA-400 for that matter). The list of Russian weapons systems for which the US has no current answer is growing daily. A bunch of blimps over DC is a joke - maybe they missed the memo that Russia now has nuclear capable hypersonic naval missiles.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that by the end of the current Resident’s current term, the US will have exactly zero nukes.
Think about how we are always ahead of our enemies in aircraft, ships, ground troop tech, satellite, etc. Yes, Russia is building up somewhat and so is China. However, even though we have a quisling in the WH, I doubt that the Pentagon is ignoring the above and has shelved its research and development.
I know, it's been cut back, but what do you do then? You set priorities and become more efficient. The Pentagon is not the Obambi Administration. There are things going on there that even the Joint Chiefs won't share with him. Believe it.