>>45788
>I don't think war between Nuclear powers is that unlikely
I somewhat agree, with the clarification that among the nuclear powers this PoV comes only from USA (and maybe from Israel wrt Iran?). If I recall, several years ago John Pilger interviewed various pentagonites and other politico-military suits for one of his documentaries, and they acknowledged that US does consider plans for waging (and ofc winning) first-strike nuclear war anywhere in the world. Whether this is just rhetoric, or honest conviction, or actual capability, who knows. Otoh the rhetoric from russia is that nuclear war cannot really be "won" so better not engage in one (i.e. old-school MAD), while some chinese officials have previously stated that china would not start a nuclear exchange, and similarly india has a "no first use" policy
This might just be the US asserting its dominant position (thus having no one to answer to), and likewise the others implicitly acknowledging that, as they are generally weaker, not giving the exceptional nation reason for enmity and rather seeking mutual deterrence can already be considered a success for them.
However, at the start of this year, the 5 UNSC permanent members issued a statement in which they affirm that nuclear weapons should only be used "defensively", they say nice-sounding words about avoiding arms races, they state that the further spread of nuclear capabilities should be prevented, and they repeat the old-school MAD wisdom about nuclear war not being really "winnable". All non-binding of course