I don’t think Europe pre-WWI can accurately be characterized as powers using a MAD-style strategy.
WWI was the result of complex interactions between multiple powers, none of whom were dominant in their region, and feared domination by another power in the region because they lacked the power to impose existence-ending consequences on rival states if the rival won military victory.
The Cold War was between only two powers who each had the ability to impose existence-ending consequences on the rival state even if the rival won a conventional military victory.
In short, MAD may have been a Nash equilibrium in a two-power international system, but it almost certainly was not the Nash equilibrium before WWI. (If one looks to history, it is not clear that any Nash equilibrium exists in those circumstances). From such reasoning grows the International Relations Realists school of political science.
I don’t think Europe pre-WWI can accurately be characterized as powers using a MAD-style strategy.
WWI was the result of complex interactions between multiple powers, none of whom were dominant in their region, and feared domination by another power in the region because they lacked the power to impose existence-ending consequences on rival states if the rival won military victory.
The Cold War was between only two powers who each had the ability to impose existence-ending consequences on the rival state even if the rival won a conventional military victory.
In short, MAD may have been a Nash equilibrium in a two-power international system, but it almost certainly was not the Nash equilibrium before WWI. (If one looks to history, it is not clear that any Nash equilibrium exists in those circumstances). From such reasoning grows the International Relations Realists school of political science.