Yes; nuclear weapons give nations the potential to not only destroy their enemies but humanity itself without drawing immediate reprisal because of the lack of a conceivable defense system and the speed with which nuclear weapons can be deployed. A nation's credible threat of such severe damage empowers their deterrence policies and fuels political coercion and military deadlock, which in turn can produce proxy warfare.
No; first, it is argued that suicidal or psychotic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence. Second, if two enemy states both possess nuclear weapons, Country X may try to gain a first-strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at Country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy's nuclear launch silos thereby rendering Country Y incapable of a response. Third, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a sub
It is unlikely any of the nuclear armed nations will ever fight each other directly.
The MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction approach has been successful so far. The military deadlock is only in regards to nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and hybrid warfare has continued to evolve.
The only time a nuke was ever used was when one nation had a monopoly on it. After multiple countries developed programs, the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented them from ever being used again.
I actually agree with nuclear weapon deterrence. But I do know that it doesn't always work. Plus yes column had a misconception that nuclear weapons can destroy humanity.