Comment by czl

That proxy wars occurred during the Cold War, one can argue that these conflicts were actually a result of nuclear deterrence. Unable to engage directly due to the threat of mutually assured destruction, superpowers instead fought indirectly through smaller nations. This could be seen as evidence that nuclear weapons did prevent direct conflict between major powers. Also history shows that nations have engaged in extremely costly wars before. World War I and II saw unprecedented casualties, yet nations still fought. Nuclear weapons introduced a new level of destructive potential that went beyond conventional warfare. And there were periods of extreme tension, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nuclear war seemed imminent. The very existence of massive nuclear arsenals suggests that both sides were prepared for the possibility of mutual destruction.

You can question the role of nukes as peacekeepers but I think the case for nuclear deterrence keeping the peace is strong. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely credited as a key factor in preventing direct conflict between superpowers during the Cold War. The presence of nuclear weapons forced them to pursue competition through economic, cultural, and technological means rather than direct military confrontation. “Race to the moon” being one such result.