...IMHO attempting to build an ABM system while the Soviet Union still had MAD capability was a phenomenally stupid decision (one of many under the Reagan administration). The Soviets could only have interpreted the Star Wars exercise as an attempt to develop first
strike capability. Of course, Reagan's defenders like to say that was the whole idea. They argue that Star Wars was a bluff intended to scare the Soviets into redirecting the last meager parts of their economy towards strategic weapons thus insuring their economic collapse.
However I don't think the US was bluffing with Star Wars. I think Ed Teller had convinced Reagan that it would work (the Excaliber X-ray laser ABM concept) and that a first strike tactic was feasible. Fortunately Teller was wrong (Excaliber didn't work) and the Soviet Union did implode. We (the human race) were incredibly lucky.

"Fortunately" the Soviet Union imploded, apparently for no discernable reason, and we were "incredibly lucky." Of course, the other theory is that Reagan's policy worked, and the Soviet Union was, as you say, forced "into redirecting the last meager parts of their economy towards strategic weapons thus insuring their economic collapse."

IMHO, we need to reduce our nuclear weapons inventory to less than 1000 submarine launched ballistic missiles each with a single advanced maneuverable reentry vehicle. The
warheads in these missiles should be based upon low radiation, low fallout nuclear explosives. We want to be in the situation that we could subject Iran/Libya to pinpoint nuclear economic castration but not slaughter the friendly populations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait in the process due to nuclear fallout.

In large part I agree with this. We will never lose the need for at least a nominal nuclear retaliatory force. I would make one major change to this statement, in that I would also include manned bombers as a major portion of this retaliatory force, and not just missiles. Manned bombers have a much more flexible response capability, and would also be part of a non-nuclear response (the B-2 is currently heading in the non-nuclear direction. Interestingly, non-nuclear armed B-2s are vastly less expensive than the nuclear-armed version. I'm not sure why.)