Based on the fact that none of it has been tested in decades it's probably save to assume that we are wasting a bunch of money maintaining non-functional equipment.
I don't believe our nukes are nonfunctional.
Land launched ICBMs are just one facet of the nuclear arsenal. SLBMs on subs, cruise missiles on subs, destroyers and aircraft, gravity bombs, etc. are all systems that were developed, tested and produced at various stages in our military history.
Missiles and other delivery systems are perfectly capable of being function tested without a nuclear payload -- or even a conventional munitions payload.
Missiles are like matches in a box. You can test one, and if the others were produced and maintained the same way, you don't have to light them all to see if they work. Doing so would be ridiculous, right? Missiles are also single-use AFAIK, just like matches.
The real issue is testing the payload. Finding an eco-friendly way to do so is critical, now that we know what the effects of testing can be.
My former employer began as a small group of engineers who developed models for nuclear detonations. That included terrain, wind speed and direction, payload size, payload material, elevation at detonation, building structures, facility hardening methods, and so on. So, the real work of calculating what's expected is already possible. All that's needed is proof of concept test to verify the results. Delivery on target with a reliable detonation -- that's easy to build and test without a mushroom cloud.
i'd be happier if they would remove those nukes hiding in the secret silos here on Oahu. Not a day goes by I don't worry ....
