I am a learner of the Russian language and saw the following statement by a vice-president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Problems:

> 
> Скажу лишь то, что в условиях обычной войны, если на нас нападут без применения ядерного оружия, мы свою "ядерную дубинку" не применим. Как не применила во время Второй мировой войны другой вид оружия массового поражения, химическое, ни одна из воюющих стран. Все его имели в количестве, достаточном для того, чтобы просто залить им друг друга. Но никто этого не сделал, даже гибнущая нацистская Германия. Также и в случае с ядерным оружием. Ведь все отдают себе отчет в том, что его применение будет самоубийством. И о том, что мы его не применим в случае войны с обычными средствами, прекрасно знают и в НАТО, и в Китае. ([Source](https://www.pravda.ru/world/1060976-agressor))
> 
> 
> 

My translation: 

> 
> I will only say that we will not use our "nuclear stick" under conditions of conventional war, if we are attacked by conventional means, just as in WWII neither of the fighting countries used another kind of weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons. Everyone had chemical weapons in amounts sufficient to flood each other, but no one did so, even the dying Nazi Germany. The same will happen with nuclear weapons, as everyone realizes that using them will be a suicide. Both the NATO and China are perfectly aware that we won't use nuclear weapons in case of conventional war.
> 
> 
> 

**My question: Do political scientists and experts agree with the view that if a conventional war breaks out between two major nuclear countries or alliances, which possess strategic nuclear weapons and a second-strike capability, the fighting sides will refrain from using nuclear weapons of mass destruction no matter what, just as Nazi Germany refrained from using chemical weapons in WWII?**

My doubts come from the following consideration. Let's suppose two major nuclear countries are in conventional war against each other and that one of them is losing the war. What if the losing side starts using its nuclear weapons of mass destruction in a limited way (i.e., tactical use against the enemy's military forces and/or limited strikes to the enemy's territory and civil population)? The other side will then face a choice between (i) responding with a full-scale nuclear strike (leading to a mutual destruction), (ii) trading limited nuclear blows, and (iii) agreeing to stop the war. I guess that Option (i) will be unacceptable for the winning country. If the winning country chooses Option (ii), I guess the losing country can increase the magnitude of limited nuclear strikes to the extent sufficient to force the winning country to agree to stop the war. So it appears that nuclear weapons are a factor even in a conventional war, as the losing side is apparently able to stop the war at any moment by using nuclear weapons of mass destruction in a limited way or perhaps even by threatening to do so. 

I am curious as to what is the dominating view by experts on this.