from the linked article (see below)

see also parent comment where there are 2 more links under "edit: ..." that support the argument that new fuze capability means higher risk of US using it preemptively. I agree with you that preemptive strikes aren't the only options, but all the research I've seen since the Bush era point to that scenario being _very_ likely (and thanks to fuze capability even more likely than unlikely. why wouldn't they use it especially during a preemptive strike. this way they get to say "look it was only a small nuke!")

from the article:

> Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

...

> This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.

...

> Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability—a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack—even when an attack has not occurred.

The increased capability of the US submarine force will likely be seen as even more threatening because Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack.