That is only if you limit yourself to the cost of the weapon itself and not the cost of actually using it. If Russia uses it, the backlash is going to be such powerful that it will likely put the existence of the country itself in peril. Now, tell me that it is cheap .
Putin says America set a precedent, and he is right. But he is wrong about the precedent that America set. The precedent that America set is, America ended the largest war in human history, and despite being involved on multiple wars ever seen (Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) including wars that America essentially lost, America has not ever dared to use one again, that is the precedent that was set, the precedent of having a capability, and deciding that it is too terrifying to use it. The precedent of admitting we cannot keep fighting vietnam or iraq and because we are not "winning" willing to go "there" we withdraw rather than escalate (nor that a nuclear detonation would have made a difference in either case). So no, America did not set a precedent for using the bombs, America set a precedent for refusing to use it, even when we have it and even when we are not winning.
Russia is having an Vietnam moment right now, they are suggesting doing the opposite of what america has done.
It would not come cheap for them. Sure, the bomb itself will likely kill more people and destroy more shit than if using bullets or individual "conventional" missiles. But the cost does not stop with the bang, the further sanctions, the escalations of war and possible NATO involvement, the posibility that india and China might cut them off whatever lifeline they are offering currently... that is measured in billions, perhaps even trillions of dollars. It would probably be the most expensive detonation in history.
You're talking to @ingliz though. Putin Cuck #1
What happened to Igor?
Don't be a Bluto, it's bad for democracy.