"Because all sides are convinced that all other sides will happily annihilate the world rather than allow their opponents to triumph. This is high school social studies shit."

.

I agree, that is high school level analysis. High school level social studies also would have it that men facing off in battle armed with gun would not hesitate to kill, but actual facts show otherwise. A small fraction are willing to kill, even to defend themselves. Current neocons, for example, are betting that the Russians, like Soviets in '62 will blink. Russians, this time, are going out of their way to dispel that perception.

.

"Because of containment both the US and USSR could only know what they stole. It wasn't a cold spat or a cold disagreement it was a cold war."

.

Not sure what this non-sequitor of yours is supposed to mean. First of all, that only applies to technology. Russians and Americans had intelligence, diplomatic, press, and cultural assets in the other side. Second, the paragraph you are attempting to address says this:

.

"Although they did not want war, these same Soviet leaders assumed that the U.S. government was in the hands of a clique of greedy capitalists who were bent on not just destroying the Soviet Union but establishing a world capitalist hegemony. Therefore, nuclear arms were essential for the survival of their way of life."

.

In other words, they had the perception that they were faced with cold blooded "greedy capitalist bent on destroying [them]" and took that threat seriously.

.

"That's an opinion, not a fact. The likelihood of nuclear exchange has decreased every day since December 25, 1991. In fact, up until a couple weeks ago we were helping the Russians dispose of weapons-grade plutonium."

.

An informed opinion. Is your opinion that until "couple of weeks ago" likelihoo of nuclear was decreasing every day a "fact"?

.

"Of course they are. Same reason they invaded Crimea. "

.

Let's hear this. (Please spare me the CNN level talking points.)

.

"By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis we had 2100 of them in the field. Yet we lived."

.

Because the Soviet Union was not projecting ultimate defeat after backing down in Cuba. And anyway, are you really taking 60s mininuke tech and delivery platforms out of its context and assuming equivalence to today's nuclear powers' strategic context and posture? More high school stuff?

.

Russia has no strategic depth to speak of. They have a shoot your wad once army, a rather embarrassing navy, fairly excellent area denial S2A and A2A, and lots and lots of ICBMs. They are going out of their way to communicate that they are worried and that this time, unlike '62, they will not be backing down. They have pretty much spelled it out, and this time unlike the old "containment" days, can read published papers by the Pentagon and those crazy neocons that spells out their worst fears.

.

I think it is appropriate to consider that the stand off today is a "bit" more unstable.