https://warontherocks.com/2023/11/two-myths-about-counterforce/

This author makes the case that targeting your adversary’s nuclear infrastructure (missiles, silos, C2) is a bad idea and leads to an endless spiral arms race while, also, not providing any benefit for deterrence and in fact increases risk of nuclear conflict.

China’s and Russia’s nuclear forces are, and will remain, sufficiently survivable that preemptive strikes on them would not succeed in meaningfully limiting the damage that the United States would suffer in a nuclear war. As a result, targeting those forces does not enhance deterrence — but it does create serious risks and costs.

I disagree vehemently with this theory because the author seems to be equating a small nuclear strike (presumably committed by an adversary’s surviving nuclear forces) with a large nuclear strike. I mean sure, 10 missiles is “sufficient” damage to deter just like 1000 is also “sufficient”, but the difference between the two is in fact very meaningful.

Basically, hitting your enemy’s nukes before they are used is such as obvious advantage that it really takes an academic to argue otherwise.