There is some merit to the idea of mutually assured destruction, but in no case does that require a plan for a first strike. A plan for an attack is not a useful deterrent at all, because if it is taken seriously it will cause a first strike by your enemy. It is a very useful deterrent against now nuclear enemies, but not against nuclear armed ones.

It is also not a plan that will prevent large scale conflict, it itself is the reason for more conflict. If you want to end conflict you will use your nuclear arsenal as a deterrent threatened to be used after certain aggressive actions by your enemies. The only thing I could possibly see how this could be put in a a bit better light is as a poker type of bluff. After seeing this plan your 'enemies' must think that you are completely crazy and have no respect for humanity. They will try to act accordingly and live in fear from you. It comes down to a type of blackmail. So instead of saying governments are capable of killing millions of innocent people for their own power, which they are, it comes down to governments are willing to threaten millions of innocent foreigners for their own power.

If a private person threatens to kill others unless they do exactly what he wants, we put that guy in jail pretty quickly. The defence that he was only bluffing, or he was doing it 'for good reasons' will not help much. Governments should not be held to different standards than individuals, all rights they have are inherited from the rights of the consenting individuals under their rule. Anything else means you are giving up your morality.