People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states'

People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states' armed forces and the diplomatic process, which evolved over centuries of war to prevent accidents and human failings. This was greatly tested during the Cold War and the policies and procedures held conflicts down to a relative minimum, the unfortunate proxy war in Vietnam aside. Once it became clear to planners that MAD wasn't a real scenario and that the most effective strategy for nuclear weaponry involves smaller, more numerous weapons, targeted at enemy military installations, focus shifted on ensuring that enough weapons are available to fully end a conflict. Disarmament agreements unfortunately ensure that there is strategic space for a nuclear exchange to not fully end a conflict. This raises the probabilities of major conflict rather than reduces them. Great in theory, not in practice.