Nuclear Deterrence MAD

Not extremely. Helpful stuff to know, but there is, right now, no real reason for anyone to launch an attack of this scale.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

I would think that a cold war situation is far more likely. No reason to use nukes in your own territory, many very good reasons to not use nukes at all. So long as the early warning systems (i.e. satellites) are still in place we will probably assume that the other side would rather avoid irradiating their own territory and prefer other aggressive tactics.

Probably not. Nuclear deterrent is just that, a deterrent. Once it's used, it's done. I don't think either side would use it on a "that's not fair" play - they'd really be reserved to respond/prevent/equalise some event/situation that would cause them to lose a war.

Nuking a non-nuclear country has less risk of MAD style escalation, yes? Same idea.

I thought they rely on nukes, to deter invasion...

You assume that you're not retaliated against. This is the essence of MAD, a kind of bizarre gentleman's agreement. The general opinion was that as soon as the nukes start flying, you can pretty much assume that your country is going to get decimated as well. When you nuke someone, there's a good chance they'll do exactly the same to you. Both sides planned for automatic counter strikes even in the event that the command chain was broken, though whether the capability was act

Can't say that I have.I say the people threatening with nukes here would turn to more subtle methods of invasion, that's their objectives. They won't destroy it because they can't have it. That'd be a waste of nukes.Now is there someone threatening another country with nukes at the moment but not using them because he knows that'd be useless anyway and would it prove my point ?

Responding to conventional weapons with a nuke ? Unlikely.

The UN hasn’t prevented war, nuclear weapons have. If your opponent has second-strike capability, starting a war is not a great idea.https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw

The US states that that is an option it make take. It does indeed make no sense, that's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it works.If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of