Sounds  true...but is it?
Pretty close!
PROPOSITION

#2
From the frame of any
perspective, Nuclear
Weapons are 'pure form’
evil
In a conflict similar to that described above, a nation 'who has' may feel less obligated
to deliberate the consequences associated with the deployment of 'conventional'
military resources.
With nuclear weapons as an option the specified nation 'who has' may perceive
as 'realistic' the notion of simultaneous missions occurring on multiple fronts. All
involved nations sense that the forces of 'liberation' could negatively affect the
balance of
restraint if conventional military strategies ultimately prove ineffective.
Relative equality among nations becomes significantly more
disparate as negative forces evolve to become problems very
tangible. Great disparity among adversaries is eventually very
detrimental for even the once dominant.  

Most would agree that NWs changed the course of conflict in WWII and beyond;
but is there any justification to the cost? Have the probabilities associated with the
eruption of pervasive violent conflict at all decreased through some type of
coerced dialogue in exploration of means less devastating?

Power extracted from the threat of suicide by means of mutual
nuclear vanquish proves only to be illusion. Ironically, war becomes
perceived as a conflict between inanimate forces as it becomes
something other then the intimate human interaction of eras past.  
There really seem no legitimate answers providing universal explanation; ultimately
we are left with only questions to the proposition. although is would seem the
evidence would suggest there is no context in which the use of nuclear weapons
can be justified
If the substance supporting domination derives significant portion from the
possession of NWs, an adversary intent upon suicide is the only rebuttal necessary
to gain ultimate material equality, even if such is represented by complete
annihilation of all life forms
If not true...
right
left

Proposition 2

relative strength

With nuclear weapons as an option the specified nation 'who has' may perceive as 'realistic' the notion of simultaneous missions occurring on multiple fronts