The calculus on this is also changing as fuzes are replaced with variable upgrades and as targeting systems are updated. Which completely changes how the nuclea

The calculus on this is also changing as fuzes are replaced with variable upgrades and as targeting systems are updated. Which completely changes how the nuclear inventory might be allotted in an all out (or really any) attack. For example: With higher accuracy from ICBMs, the US ends up needing fewer bombs to hit the same number of targets. Meaning we might be able to assume that enough silos (plus subs) would survive a first strike to delay a response decision. A flip side is that the new fuzes allow lower dial-a-yields, and combined with more precision, strategic weapons can technically take on a more tactical role, potentially increasing the justification for their use. (Which might also play into the whole mid range missle treaty collapse.) There are obviously many other angles to consider, but the US response window is likely to at least shift, if not completely change.