As long as the people with the weapons act rationally. Which might be an anomaly.

The problem with game theory is that the actors do act rationally, and the most rational scenario is still the doomsday genocide: first strike, with a submarine counterstrike.

When you know your opponent has counterstrike capability, first strike stops being rational.

350K+ reported casualties just in a year sounds already much

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-wit...

To give some context, Battle of the Somme, lasted 4 months, total casualties: 1m+.

This was before invention of Twitter, now with so many conflicts in the air, I'm sure we can beat that figure.

Ukraine isn't a major power, and the fact that they've been able to hold back Russia so effectively, with so few resources, is mainly an indicator of how weak Russia is these days.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

Entirely ruined by the reality that those having them are not bombed to ground by conventional weapons when they attack somewhere.

So I would argue they are either neutral or massive negative.

There's been plenty of war, and it could well be the first step on a path to the end of life on earth. I imagine this belief stems from all the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary/good" propaganda.

Full scale war between Russia and Ukraine (with help of NATO) progressing right now with constant threats to use nuclear weapons or blow up a nuclear power station.

> There hasn’t been a full scale war between major powers since.

Yet all the major powers have launched multiple, lengthy full scale wars since.