|I figure a number of people here will disagree with me, but I'd like to share my ideas, and will happily take any criticism aimed my way :-).
I've been reading about the SORT/START treaties, and the SSBN-X program to replace the Ohio-class subs (which is already getting started). This lead me to thinking that we could simplify the arsenal by using silo-based ICBMs for all our nukes.
Now to justify this thinking
 It's safe: missile silos fell out of favor once MIRVs became accurate enough to target them. But with treaty limits, the US/USSR get only 1,500 - 2,000 warheads each. If we built 3-4 "silos" for each missile/warhead, spaced well apart, destroying more than a small fraction of the US's arsenal would become effectively impossible.
 Cost: SSBN-X is currently estimated to cost $8B, not including operating costs. That'd be $112B (14 * 8) if we replace the Ohios 1-for-1, assuming we stay on-budget (unlikely). Building new ICBM silos may be expensive, but it'd be vastly cheaper than a new run of SSBNS. Given limited resources, I'd rather those yards kept building Virginia class SSNs...
 Flexibility: conventional trident missiles were scrapped because "Russia might think it was a nuclear attack." If all our nukes are on ICBMs, then we could easily say "if the missile didn't come from the central US, it's not a nuke."
 Backup plans: both treaties allow for "responsible reserve forces," so the US could keep a stock of bombs/cruise missiles in storage. If the arms race started back up, it would be easy to put those weapons back into service.
So... that's my thinking. I don't expect this to actually happen, but I'd love to hear your take on this.