I most definitely agree with you that it is far from morally correct. Quite honestly, nothing in this world is morally right anymore. However, it simply comes down to protection. I would rather be protected by the concept of mutually assured risk than be susceptible to attack without a chance of defense or reaction.And this is what I morally have the most issue with. This is true, only with dreadful consequences of many "innocent" lives caught in the decisions of a minority (politically powerful individuals). The rest of your post makes sense to me, but I can not agree on this as I am coming from the perspective that even if we do have "mutually assured mass destruction on all sides", it is not a morally valid reason to justify the mass elimination of many human lives.
