[xorcist]

That not using nuclear weapons is a rational choice, but somehow using conventional is, is far from clear.

That we are alive now is a fact. But that we have nuclear weapons to thank for it, is not. It is a common argument that the cold war would have developed into a hot war otherwise, but we don't know that. That it feels right is not a good argument.

But irrationality of nuclear weapons aside, it is also a fact that whole nation states act irrational from time to time. Invading Ukraine certainly wasn't, but it happened anyway. Taking both of these facts into account it is increasingly unlikely that nuclear weapons actually protect us from conflicts going hot.

Too bad we don't have similar planets in a comparison group.

[BlueTemplar]

> It is a common argument that the cold war would have developed into a hot war otherwise, but we don't know that.

We can take a pretty good guess after WW1 and WW2. Especially considering what the USA and the Soviets thought of each other.

[samus]

Would it really have developed into a hot war though? Already WW1 made most countries way less willing to engage in another one. Was not enough to prevent the next one of course. WW2 was quite terrible even though nukes were used only at the very end*. Conventional Soviet strength was overwhelming immediately after WW2; it can therefore be argued that the developing nuclear stockpiles contributed to the Cold War as it happened. It would have still happened in a different way, but the Soviets might have eventually prevailed without the threat of nukes stopping Soviet tanks from reaching the Atlantic.

Edit:

*: Which meant that only the "true" winner nations were able to hold on to colonies and go on military adventures.

[BlueTemplar]

I was puzzled as to whether you were agreeing with me or not, but you seem to be thinking that a huge war that would see no military fighting taking place on continental Americas (yet again) would not be considered a "World War" (or even weaker, a "hot war") ? If so, I disagree with that.

[samus]

Such a war might not necessarily be limited to Europe though, as the various alliances are spread globally, and thus the designation "World War" would again be appropriate. Anyways, my point was more that such a war would be much more unlikely with the Soviets as the hegemon across most of Europe. This doesn't preclude proxy wars from time to time of course.

[BlueTemplar]

If your history only diverges around the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's hard for me to imagine a likely scenario where the conquest of Western Europe (minus UK?) by the USSR wouldn't qualify as "WW3". (Maybe if it immediately follows WW2 - for which I somewhat doubt the Soviets has the strength for, considering the heavy US presence... and even then this seems like hair-splitting ?)

[samus]

It really depends on whether the conflict stays restricted to Europe or not. A regional war is not a world war, even though Europeans might regard themselves as the navel of the world. As you say, a hair-splitting exercise for future archeologists (might actually be cockroaches or aliens) studying the leftovers of human culture.

[xorcist]

Dresden should suffice?

[BlueTemplar]

You'll have to be more specific ??