“By this logic wouldn’t most of the military of all countries with nukes be unnecessary?”
That’s a fallacy. Of course most countries prefer to start wars without nukes, but nothing guarantees that that’s the way they will also end, specially between 2 nuclear powers with similar arsenals.
Russia, for instance, isn’t using nukes to conquer Ukraine (yet, at least) but it’s more than obvious that it would use nukes to defend itself from a NATO invasion (Putin has said it himself). If not “more than obvious” (just to be completely analytical here), at least “extreme likely”. Therefore, invading Russia would be suicidal for NATO—with nuclear war there are no winners. Therefore, my argument still stands.
“By this logic wouldn’t most of the military of all countries with nukes be unnecessary?”
That’s a fallacy. Of course most countries prefer to start wars without nukes, but nothing guarantees that that’s the way they will also end, specially between 2 nuclear powers with similar arsenals.
Russia, for instance, isn’t using nukes to conquer Ukraine (yet, at least) but it’s more than obvious that it would use nukes to defend itself from a NATO invasion (Putin has said it himself). If not “more than obvious” (just to be completely analytical here), at least “extreme likely”. Therefore, invading Russia would be suicidal for NATO—with nuclear war there are no winners. Therefore, my argument still stands.