I am although I must admit I was a little annoyed earlier and probably unfairly directed "beyond retarded" on you and sinophilia. But let me address your points with my opinions with more civility.
I don't think anyone here knows for sure how capable American BMD truly is. It could surprise us all with how pathetic or effective it is. Therefore it would be sensible to be more cautious while trying to ascertain details via studiously conducted intelligence gathering. It's also better to be prepared in developing increasingly penetrative and survivable delivery systems. There is no loss here since the arms race is happening anyway and so they need to be done regardless.
Nike programs and its predecessors have been impressive. Maybe successor BMD programs are far more effective against smaller and weaker nuclear powers but the threat should be respected.
Likely impossible to defend against to me doesn't sound good enough considering the price to pay for getting it wrong. Does it cost China that much just to expand their entire retaliation fleet from say 300 to say 1000? Maybe the economic optimal isn't that proportional increase, but whatever it is, that's where it should ideally be as opposed to remaining with 300 total warheads.
Sure but what if it comes down to that? It's not a matter of whether or not leaders have an appetite for this or that. It also assumes US political leadership is truly transparent, honest, and remains predictable in behaviour. None of these assumptions are sound.
Of course but I believe letting Europe go un-nuked in such a scenario where both North America and Asia are gone is bad out of principle. It's up to "us" to make them invested in preserving our survival. That's a small part of Cold War MAD anyway. To build a small model, let's say a hypothetical world where three main independent competing groups exist constantly fighting over finite resources. If group A and group B kill other off, group C inherits all the resources. In principle, it is in group C's interest to seek this path. Of course in real life, there are many more complexities and reasons why Europe obviously won't like such a devastating outcome but just out of pure principle on these two points, they ought to be destroyed in MAD. Especially when we also consider how Europe is often partly responsible for such a situation.
Also how does anyone know for sure that US policy isn't being at least partially directed from western Europe?
I was questioning your faith in survivable second strike being a guaranteed option that is effective. It is not because it's purely theoretical and there's no way the CCP can have such a close understanding of Russia's dead hand system.
Second strike means you need more warheads and delivery systems around than having first strike policy intact. You cannot possibly have less nukes to use in first strike while you can potentially have no nukes left with second strike. I feel this particular point is going to derail the main discussion here. My point is to say there are very few benefits in terms of having a stronger deterrence and ability to conduct second strike with a no first use policy. They rarely affect each other i.e. having no first use policy DOESN'T mean you have a stronger ability to respond to a first strike. It also doesn't further deter others from conducting first strike. It's advantages are mostly political in nature.
1000 warheads isn't a massive stockpile by my definition. It would be less than 1/5 of Russia's and US stockpile. If that's considered massive then US and Russian stockpiles should be called criminally unholy. China isn't UK where it has a beast backing it and no real enemies that would even consider first strike on it unless the world is going into total nuclear exchange. China is constantly threatened by criminally unholy warhead horders who have waged literally dozens of wars and murdered millions in the last century. Actual facts, not fabricated BS like millions of non-existant Uighurs or millions of student protestors. So I would imagine at least having 1/5 that warhead count is the bare minimum in a life insurance policy.
Late reply, sorry
1. Because it's basically impossible to hide missile defense tests, for the same reason it's impossible to hide missile or rocket tests. Therefore, we at least have a good idea of what the TESTED capabilities are for American missile defense, and it's not particularly impressive. However, if it's demonstrated that American missile defense becomes an actual threat to a successful second strike, it would justify an expansion of the Chinese warhead stockpile. This hasn't happened yet though. As for the uncertainty regarding a successful Chinese second strike being "not good enough," I think you should consider the perspective of the American leadership. Because they are basically always to be the attacker, consider: to American leadership, is missile defense that has never been tested against sophisticated targets "good enough" to justify a first strike? The answer, in my opinion, is sure to be no.
2. If we assume that US leaders aren't rational actors, then the whole paradigm of MAD goes out the window anyways. What's to stop them from just nuking China, consequences be damned, in that case?
3. I don't really agree with holding Western Europe responsible, and I feel like the scenario you described doesn't really reflect reality.
4. Neither survivable second strike nor a disarming first strike has been tested, and I dearly hope it stays that way. Both are totally theoretical, and that's not an issue, and should remain the norm for nuclear issues.
5. The difference between a first strike and a second strike is that the first strike needs missiles to take out the enemy's missile silos and C4 infrastructure. A second strike does not. I don't think you quite realize how damaging arms races are. The main benefit of a no-first-use policy is in fact that you aren't obligated to match the number of nukes to your opponents. What happened in the Cold War was grotesque, and China rightfully wants nothing to do with it.
6. 1000 stockpiles is the number I've seen floating around on weibo that people think the stockpile should increase to, I believe it was first floated by the editor-in-chief of the Global Times. He's no nuclear expert, and
<-here's a good piece rebutting it. For the record, I do consider the US and Russian stockpiles criminally unholy, and I sincerely wish that China never joins them down that path. China's nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and you do not need many weapons as a deterrent. Even if China is beset on all sides by enemies, I don't see any evidence that those enemies will be able to stop a Chinese nuclear response, even if China's stockpiles remain low. China has rightfully invested much into delivery systems, and that's where the money should be focused, not building more warheads.
