Perhaps on paper. But being a global power gives the US a special relationship with friendly countries as well. The dependency on US military protection subverts the sovereignty of allied nations causing them to harmonise laws on intellectual property, drugs, share intelligence including information about businesses in competition with US ones amongst other things. It is a very advantageous situation for the USA and I think it is wrong to think the only point of being a global superpower is to keep the Russians and Chinese in line. It is as much about maintaining the Empire and keeping the client states in line. Hail Caeser!

Are those really not dealt with via ICBMs? Why do we need the capacity to destroy them 20x over within 25 minutes when 1x with 3 hours notice would suffice? It seems like the downside risk of rogue actors or accidents causing a nuclear holocaust far outweighs the benefits of additional weapons at the margin.

Do you want the information relating to the ICBM's to be public knowledge?

ICBMs don't move around... so they are easily targeted themselves.

Two countries that have never used nuclear weapons against their enemies.

On the other hand, they've both killed tens of millions of their own citizens. Each.

And the U.S. killed more people using conventional ordnance in a single night in Tokyo than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined from the atomic bombings, so what is it that you're actually upset about? Because it's obviously not the number of Japanese killed.

I wasn't commenting on total number of people killed by each government. We were talking about nuclear weapons (specifically nuclear subs).

Yes, but you say that as if being killed by a nuclear weapon is somehow more traumatic than being burned alive in a city-sized Holocaust incited by incendiary weaponry. Or even that being blown to bits by conventional weaponry is somehow better.

Think about it: Germany never used nuclear weapons on the U.S.S.R., were they somehow more moble?