The US has a bigger bomb. The general public just doesn't know about it.
The bigger bomb isn't the issue.
The US has standardized on a warhead 2/3rds the size of the Russian warheads.
The US probably does have "specials" but it won't have a lot of them.
It gave up the Peacekeeper (95 ton) which was almost the size of the 100+ ton Satan.
The peacekeeper could do 12 MIRVed warheads to the Satan 15.
The US could reMIRV the minuteman IIIs with the Peacekeeper warheads.
The US really doesn't have enough warheads to thoroughly destroy Russia and at best will kill half the population.
The minuteman III is an aging missile and they should have replaced them.
The sad part is only China uses the US W88 (about 2/3rds the physical weight/size of the W87). Because of a plant incident the US never produced the more advanced warhead.
Are you saying more is better ?
How the US's nuclear weapons compare to Russia's
No, I'm saying our leadership is nutty.
They want to destroy specific sites and not ravage Russia.
The Russians want to ravage the US.
What's in it for them after the big ones go off.
Of course taking into account that no one really wins in a Nuclear war . I think if war comes it will just come out of the blue someone somewhere will make a blunder, a tactical error , a mistake in what they say or more to the point what they actually do and it will just happen, the mushroom clouds will sprout. But then maybe not, it might go the way that the USA will do a pre emptive raid on Kims head office and try and take him out manually without Nukes but then again if they do that will Kim push the big red button ? And what will the Chinese and Russians think of that . Trump got away with cruise missiles in Syria but I don't honestly believe he will get away with a sneaky raid on North Korea.
If you kill more of the other guys than they kill of you, that is generally regarded as "winning".
Whether it is worth the cost is an entirely different matter.
It is hard for a rational person to explain the US viewpoint.
If you need to fight a nuclear war, you would like to be sure your opponent is more damaged, since that is a deterrent to keep them from striking first.
That isn't the US viewpoint. Can't explain what I don't understand.
I usually assume that people are crazy when they adopt positions I don't understand and that is true in this case.