Maybe nuclear war is inevitable.
No. It's a choice. Psychohistory doesn't exist. Thucydides Traps are the invention of weak minds.
It certainly felt that way in the 1980s.
The only thing certain I remember is that the Soviets were certain that Reagan or Bush would turn all of the Soviet Union into a glowing cinder if they used nuclear weapons, which in turn created certain deterrence and helped prevent nuclear war.
We got through that period because we followed certain rules under the gentleman's agreement that kept the US and the USSR from annihilating each other
What "gentleman's agreement"? The only unspoken agreement I can fathom is the one where both sides agreed that they did not want to use nuclear weapons and only kept them to prevent the other side from using them. Hence, a "gentleman's agreement" against first use. This agreement did not come into play until enough scares occurred in the Soviet Union to encourage leadership that the use of nuclear weapons was suicide and keeping nuclear weapons only increased risk.
even while carrying out despicable acts in the name of defeating the other - acts far worse cumulatively than what we're seeing in Ukraine, as appalling as it is.
It's true. What the Soviets, Chicoms, Khmer Rouge, NVA, and Viet Cong did were indeed despicable and appalling.
We didn't shoot Russian helicopters out of the sky in Afghanistan, and they were committing the same atrocities there.
Same atrocities maybe, but not the same geopolitical strategic situation.
In 1980, what forces were Carter, or Reagan in 1981, supposed to commit to fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? Was there a friendly government there fighting for it's life? A government that we had ties to? That we had an established supply route with?
Let's look at this realistically. In 1981, before the DoD expansion under Reagan, the main enemy was the Soviet Union. That was the enemy center of gravity and the plan was to concentrate in West Germany. Any movement of forces away from this center of gravity would have drawn forces away from the built up OpPlan. Why do that? Why fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? To set up what? With what allies? Pakistan?
The situation in 2022 is much different. Here Russia is attacking straight onto NATO's front porch. This is in fact the fight that the Army, Navy, and Air Force of the 1980s was built to fight, which was then unleashed on a hapless Iraq in 1991. This is it. The ghost of Norman Schwarzkopf has an erection. This is why former SACEURs like Joulwan and Clarke are some of the only voices saying "let's go". The Cold War didn't end. It was just paused and then Western Europe didn't want to play anymore. All the *censored* that the Soviet Union caused for 80 years and all the *censored* that Russia has been causing over the last 14 and all the *censored* that it would like to cause over the next 100 years comes down to 2022. Russia can be defeated now, and never be the seed for further problems in the world again.
But never ever having an American hand on the button that launched them, at least not provably.
I'm going to repeat that there is nothing magical about an American soldier killing a Russian soldier that automatically leads to nuclear war. The war plans developed by the Warsaw Pact only began to include the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the 1960s because the NATO forces were so weak it was stated and assumed that NATO would use tac nukes first. Key in on that. The Warsaw Pact only planned to use tac nukes if NATO used them first. They didn't need tac nukes to win. And despite the plans to use tactical nukes against the Warsaw Pact, the idea that nuclear war was unwinnable war pretty strong in the US during the 60s and 70s. The "Seven Days to the Rhine" scenario was centered around NATO first use of nuclear weapons.
Russian was contained by Nato in Europe.
NATO containment depends on the concept that American soldiers, airmen, and sailors would fight Russians and kill Russians despite their having nuclear weapons. The "inevitability" of the current situation is that Russia is losing and will continue to lose in the long run, even if they do manage to take the Donbas, which is exactly what would happen if the United States enters the war today. The decision point isn't "an American has killed a Russian, nuke them", it's "we are losing and there is no other way to stop losing than using a tactical nuclear weapon to force negotiations". That is the only way that Russia can use nuclear weapons and not lose worse than they already will.
Then we retaliate with strikes on non-capital Russian cities. Pressure builds. Maybe Putin says its time for a nuke, or maybe the command and control isn't airtight and a Russian general decides its time. That can't go unanswered, so St. Petersburg gets melted. Somebody realizes the trajectory of this escalation, and goes for the full strike before the other guy can do it.
This is word salad that makes no strategic sense. Why would NATO retaliate on Russian cities in response to conventional cruise missile attacks? It makes better sense to retaliate against the missile launchers and missile depots. If Pooter decides to pull the trigger with a tactical nuclear weapon, why would NATO respond against a strategic target like St. Petersburg? It makes better sense to hit another tactical target like an airfield or supply depot or troop concentration. This is just fear. This is "don't poke the bear in the cage, because then the bear is going to pick the lock and then go to the pawn shop and buy a 12 gauge shotgun and hotwire a Mazda Miata and come to your house and shoot you in the middle of the night after climbing down your chimney". It's unrealistic.
It's a horrible choice. If one of your children falls out of a lifeboat, do you dive in to try to save them or do you stay and protect the other kids that are still in the boat?
Most parents dive in, depending on their ability to swim.
