"The CEP of their missiles didn't guarentee a kill against our hardened silos But the accuracy of our ICBMs did have a far higher chance of taking out their missiles, and other military targets, with much smaller warheads."

Your own words. They target our cities because they can't hit our silos and we make plans to go after hardened targets to take out their missiles--because we can.

Think for a change, will you? If you're targeting silos and taking out military targets you are destroying missiles intended to kill cities, deterrent weapons. THAT MEANS YOU PLAN TO SHOOT FIRST. And if you plan to shoot first you don't need to upgrade your silos or make your missiles mobile when the enemy improves their accuracy.

The reason you use smaller, expensive, accurate independently targeted warheads is because an accurate small weapon is just as likely to take out a silo as a big one, any size weapon will do if you can get it close enough, so you're better off with smaller weapons so you can carry several in one vehicle. That makes a sneak attack more likely to succeed and confuse defensive measures; more hits with less launches.

On the other hand, big bombs are best for taking out cities, a hit anywhere near one will set it ablaze, so accuracy and numbers is not an issue. 2nd strike weapons need to be cheap and tough because you need lots of them so enough survive a first strike to be a credible deterrent. They need to be robust, not high performance.

Think about the dynamics and requirements of nuclear warfare, the strategy and tactics of a missile exchange, not just about how wonderful our machines are and how much smarter we are than them stinkin' Commie Russkies.

Give the Top Gun DOD brochure techno-babble a rest and and think for a change. Or are you simply, as Gen Jack D Ripper once put it, "incapable of strategic thought"?