Symbolically, it's good. But, substantively, it does not mean much because you can reach re-target in about ten seconds. Therefore, we have to take the weapons off alert, separate the war-heads from the missiles that carry them in such a way that it would take a while to put them back together. This way we can reduce the risk of an accident or a rash decision in a moment of crisis that might lead to the use of nuclear weapons. No, I totally disagree with that.
Deterrence depends on having a somewhat rational opponent.
Deterrence isn't going to stop someone who is not rational and cautious in the use of violence. Our military leaders say that the major threat to the security of the United States and to world peace today is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the danger that they will fall into the hands of terrorists or rogues. As long as these weapons exist, there will be the danger of a leak that permits rogues or terrorists to get their hands on them and then use them. Our military leaders also point out that you don't need nuclear weapons to deal with an irrational foe that might possess one or two weapons. They say that you can deal with them better by overwhelming conventional strength.