It's true that not everyone would be killed in the initial detonations, but nuclear explosions pull radioactive crud high into the atmosphere. The radioactivity is short-lived (unless a nuclear reactor was hit) but extremely radioactive. This would then be blown for large distances. Add enough of these together, and it would be disingenious to claim that extinction within a decade wouldn't be a very real possibility.

I appreciate the clear statement of your argument, but point out that one premise is potentially incorrect: humans are not rational actors. If only they were.

Finally, while my "insanity" comment was harsh, it is a suitable reply for the "no matter the risk..." comment. It is insane, because it can be used to justify anything. This world is not a dichotomy: there is no pure evil or pure good. Using labels frees you from having to justify your stance, and gives you an inaccurate and unnuanced model to operate with.

Further, stopping the USSR was not the responsibility of the human race. Nor do you have a right to decide my life, especially if I'm in a neutral country. And so forth.

If you want less rhetoric, provide less rhetoric. You're slinging around grandiose statements which don't stand up under scruity. You seem intelligent, so you apparently you don't fully believe these statements, or have fully considered their ramifications. Or do you? In which case, you're insane. QED.

> no matter the risk, no matter the cost, no matter the consequences

Please explain how a rational actor can operate with such an evaluation method.