How is America only destruction worse than mutual destruction? That's what I'm saying, it's not a humanistic or broadly moral outlook

Edit I’m not talking about hitting strategic targets (do those really require H-bombs anyway?). And thanks for clarifying that the lives of citizens in allied countries are worth so much more than Russian citizens.

Well, supposing motivation to totally destroy a country, allowing both to take out each others military installations may result in less loss of life that one side being totally dominant. Obviously either situation is beyond terrible.

Nuclear weapons (and all other sufficiently powerful weapons) really do suck.

Since it would be very hard, though, for nations to keep enough around for mutually assured destruction without anyone noticing (or so I think) I would think that disarmament is not an entirely crazy idea. I would even assume that an agreement by the US, Russia and China would be sufficient. (I’m not sure to what extent Pakistan and India can threaten the rest of the World and I really don’t think Israel and North Korea matter. I’m also pretty sure that France and the UK would follow the US because they would look pretty stupid if they wouldn’t.)

A successful retaliatory attack by America could prevent the enemy from attacking our allies after they've hit us.

Given the amount of American military infrastructure that was in the UK (and other allies) during the cold war any attack on the United States would almost certainly have included missile and bomber attacks on the allies.

Also with the fact that most Western European countries are quite small and densely populated compared to the United States and the Soviet Union the carnage here would have been indescribable (although if you want a feeling for what a "best case" attack might have been like feel free to watch Threads).