Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
This is a great point, but I would submit that the specter of nuclear arms is even more compelling than that of the chemical and biological weapons of the period. The costs are even higher. Has any nuclear armed nation challenged the territorial integrity of another nuclear armed nation? Their proxy fights have been pushed into more and more desolate regions as an ever growing list of nations has fallen under a nuclear umbrella (either their own, or that of an ally).
India and Pakistan have been at each other's throats for decades, and I believe some of the major conflicts carried into the years when both were nuclear capable.

I'm also pretty sure Israel had nukes during several of it's major conflicts in the preceding decades. Could be wrong on this one, though.

Afghanistan didn't have nukes when it was at war with Russia. That said, Russia didn't decide to resort to nukes when it was essentially a given that they had "lost". Not that the use of nukes would have been wise at all, seeing how they were fighting a decentralized, guerrilla force.

Someone mentioned Britain and the Falklands crisis.