Regarding the nuclear "treat":
Andrew M. Lobaczewski -
"Political ponerology"
The most modern and expensive weapons threatening humanity with global catastrophe are presently obsolete the very day they are produced. Why? They are the weapons of a war which must never take place, and the nations of the world pray that it never does.
So, simply put, "ancient" wisdom - cosmic wisdom (I think the information contained in "political ponerology" is so objective that we could consider it as "chanel-ized", or even "cosmic truths") - tells us the nuclear option is something that is "never to take place". I assume such sort of action would go too much against "what is", "what is to be".
We see Putin, reluctant to use nukes, and everybody asks "why". He would provide answers, some hints, etc. But overall, people don't use nukes, perhaps because it's something that would have consequences & repercussions on some "high-level" aspects.
So - "those are the weapons of a war which must never take place". We can then try to study it, turn it over and over and try to find how's & why's - but sometimes simple words carry the whole meaning. There must of course exist a specific reason.
I understand it may be a matter of "the course of events". If "nuke", then "not aligned".
So - when people consider the nuke option - I am wondering if it is reasonable to do so, because if used, it would mean that the situation would turn out to be too unconventional - as in "not matching", perhaps.
I believe STO don't planned a future including "nukes", but hey, it can happen (and STO of course factored that in), because it is free-will. If it happens, then the consequences will be "a timeline that was never meant to be". An
"unconventional situation" requiring/deserving/meeting/triggering
"unconventional answers".