>There is no concept of deployment for these - it's simple and normal usage.
They are absolutely deployed and accounted for.
>...and thousands of tactical nukes of all shapes and sizes.
Most sit in storage, not deployed.
>But speaking of a deployed tactical nuke is somewhat nonsensical.
The people whose job it is to track deployments of tactical nuclear weapons would probably disagree.
But strategic nukes are a different beast those simply because of their size and requirement for specialized launchers, as well as their relative incongruence with conventional weapons delivery devices. You're not launching a strategic nuke out of a conventional rocket system (as could be the case for a tactical nuke) for sure! So this makes them, more or less, able to be reasonably estimated. It's still a pretty big guessing game, but it's generally going to be at least roughly in the right ballpark.
All that said I do agree that this would result in mutual mass strikes with strategic weapons, and whatever tactical weapons may be appropriate for such a strike. This is why I think direct conflict with Russia, or Russia using nuclear weapons of any sort in Ukraine, is likely to escalate rapidly to what would be the defacto end of the world.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_des...