Cold war going hot - would nuclear war be inevitable?

[Luciano]

So, what i'm asking is:
In the event of the cold war going hot, did nations necessarily had to deploy their full nuclear arsenal at each other?
Couldn't we have a conventional war or a 'limited' nuclear war (for example, just one or two nukes deployed?)
Is this ASB?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Sometimes I think so, seeing as both sides refrained from use of chemical weapons in World War II. But whenever I've tried to do a TL on a conventional WWIII, it always ends up going nuclear.

 

[Pangur]

It is just about possible that it can be stopped going nuclear is the conflict is not in either Europe or the Middle East. Both sides would have to agree to some rules of engagement if even informally/de facto - things like keep the war confined to the theater of conflict. My reasoning is that if the home lands of either side is not directly threatened you remove the key fear factor

 

[Webster]

If the Cold War had gone hot anywhere but Europe or the Korean Peninsula, odds are nukes' aren't likely to be used; even in Korea, nukes' aren't a likely weapons option (principally since, IIRC, N. Korea doesn't either have very many to start with). On the other hand, if the Cold War had gotten hot in Europe, depending on the circumstances, it could go nuclear in a hurry...

 

[wcv215]

Both countries had the use of nuclear weapons as the first step they take in a direct conflict because they both believed it would co e to it eventually, and getting hit first wasn't something that either side would tolerate.

So yes, it was inevitable

 

[TheMann]

I think its possible, but it depends a lot on the forces involved and the people involved. NATO doctrine during the Cold War talked about using tactical nuclear weapons while using threats over strategic uses of nukes to stop it from getting out of hand, but I would say that is very unlikely. Once any form of WMDs are used, chemical weapons included, you could have it get real ugly real fast.