The US and Russia have been successfully not having a war since 1945, why would that stop now?

Several times since 1945 war between the US and the Soviet Union has been averted by what looks like almost sheer luck. So if the next 65 years look anything like the last 65, war is quite probable.

Next you'll tell me a ball bearing is just round chunks of metal and that's all there is to it.

Many, many hours have been spent designing the command and control policies and procedures that surround weapons systems capable of quickly starting a war. It's not "just luck" anymore than a ball bearing is round metal but disdainfully looking in from the outside I can see how it might appear that way.

Of course luck is involved. Luck is involved to some degree to any human endeavor. But to say that the only reason we haven't had WW3 is luck is to discredit the work of many people and deny the agency of many others.

I didn't say it was the only reason. I understand people would think that was implied, so I'm glad you pushed back. In every multi-factor complex system people insist on figuring out which factor is most important. Which is bullshit, because in most cases many different factors are critical in the technical sense of the word critical.

The US and Russia have been engaging in Proxy wars since 1945. The US has been closing on Russia and getting too close (Syria/Ukraine), and that raise the probability of a Russian offensive.

It doesn't make much sense to send nukes all over the world. You ruin your land and any land you wish to take long-term. The survivors will have a historical grudge against the carnage. A more reasoned goal would be to cripple the military complex's ability to strike, but that's impractical, even with all the nukes. Subs, fighters, underground bases, etc. So we're left with "make it expensive to replenish forces locally". An aim to cripple the responses within a limited theater is economical in every regard. Small scale hotbed areas are where recent wars have been fought and are likely to continue to be fought.

The global firezone where there are no clear goals or gains is rather silly to imagine.

You're right, but let's say one side strikes first and the other is impacted but doesn't have their military command totally wiped out. They're probably going to respond back with more nukes. And what'll be the response to that?

Even if it may not be a total "ensure every square mile is in range of blasts or fallout", and even if maybe not every single person in either country dies, it'd likely quickly escalate into humanity's worst catastrophe (so far...).

I could potentially see tactical nuclear weapons being deployed in theaters that are far away from any superpower's homeland, though, as almost happened several times during the Cold War.

> You're right, but let's say one side strikes first and the other is impacted but doesn't have their military command totally wiped out. They're probably going to respond back with more nukes

I don't follow this. Russia is driving tanks and trucks and flying planes over to Greece. Ok, now NATO comes in with planes and tanks and bombs some staging areas and factories in Russia prior to a land invasion. Ok, Russia Nukes who? Why? They are in Greece, nuking some point in Europe is just going to get retaliated (like Moscow and somewhere else) from anonymous submarines while the land forces stream into Ukraine and eventually Russia. Maybe he's got super intel and is able to pinpoint nuke land forces that will stall the liberation of any area for weeks or months.

Putin would be shitting himself because he would have 2 options. NUKE THE WORLD and kill himself, because he doesn't get to keep Greece and it's going to end in one of those directions, either way.

I agree, which is why I think a nuclear conflict is not that likely to (intentionally) happen between large nation-states. I was just responding to a hypothetical scenario where nukes are used in an attempt to neutralize a country's military, which I initially thought was what you were proposing but I see now you weren't and were making a different point entirely.

A war with Russia doesn't make sense. The US would have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain. Most literature I see is squarely focused on China, and specifically Taiwan.

300 nukes is still enough to kill at least tens of millions of Americans, possibly over a hundred million. At that point, who in the US will care if we have an "advantage"?

If they were all deployed, plus some similar retaliation, would that not lead to a global nuclear holocaust? Aside from just the initial destruction.