> If Russia (or China) becomes militarily superior to America I would consider that the end of the free world as we know it.
Of course you do! You don't believe that MAD works!
But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first?
> Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that.
Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size.
What evidence, besides your belief do you have, for the United States not losing more than three quarters of its civilian population, if attacked by six thousand nuclear weapons?
> I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose.
No, everybody would lose. The reason they haven't done anything is because it is not an inflection point. Localized missile defenses that will stop a small fraction of a small fraction of potential attacks are not an inflection point that breaks MAD. They are something to complain about, not something to go to war over.
But just because cutting off 5% of your air supply doesn't result in serious problems for you, cutting it off again, and again, and again, and again will eventually reach a critical inflection point.
> If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong".
Just because the reds said it, doesn't mean they were wrong.