It appears to me the US is now in a ‘cold war’ phase similar to the period 1849 to 1860, It does not mean a general conflict is inevitable anymore than the Cold War of 1947 to 1989 meant a war was inevitable. The interaction of personalities and events drives the action. In the case of the late US-Soviet duel we are fortunate that Stalin wasn't ten years younger. Then, I believe, there would have been another real world war beginning in 1953-56 Stalin knew the US would soon have an overwhelming advantage in nuclear weapons so starting a war to control western Europe and the Middle East would seem a good idea while the conventional forces of the USSR really did massively outnumber the US and the still weak NATO. Soviet military people told their US counterparts that the USSR had endured the equivalent of a nuclear war in 1941-45, US retaliatory strength could not. circa early 1950’s even begin to inflict the destruction the war with Hitler produced. So the Soviet military establishment was not much impressed with a nuclear war. Now thermonuclear would be something else altogether.
I agree with much of what you say, but the calculus of a nuclear war is very different than a calculus of a conventional war, or even a political system in which you murder tens of millions of your own people, and enslave even more.
I disagree that was their mindset. In a conventional war, or a political action where you are going to kill others, you likely hold out the mindset you will not be a casualty, it will be everyone else BUT you.
But there is no escaping that except for a select few (and even then) in a nuclear exchange, nearly everyone is going to be a casualty.
That said, I do agree that if Stalin had been healthier and held power another ten years, there might well have been another world war, or at least a large one.