None of them had nuclear weapons.
Lt. Fred I agree with you that nuclear weapons have largely prevented large scale conflicts, total wars, since they have come into providence. I do however do not think it is impossible for another such conflict to come about. Hopefully it never does.
First of all: Do you need nuclear weapons for total war? Because I thought that attacking civilian targets and otherwise targeting the civilians as well as the military is "total war."
Because as long as we have MAD fear of escalation will keep the use of nukes as the absolutely last choice. (in more than one way) But since MAD only counts if you actually have enough nukes to be a real threat. Or you could have a ally with nukes AND be certain that this ally is ready and willing to end their own lives for your sake. Because that is what would happen in a war with nukes! And this is the situation where the smaller NATO countries are. And those that rely on China or Russia as well I guess.
So if someone attacks... lets say Macedonia and the attacker is backed up by Russia, would the NATO countries be willing to use nukes? If the choice is between loss of one of their allies or a war that could end the life on earth what would the politicians do? On the other hand, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq was hard for some countries since it meant risking the lives of their citizens (soldiers in this case) how much higher would the stakes be if Iraq (or her allies) had been able to retaliate directly against the countries that participated in the occupation? So if someone does attack a "lesser country" and they don't have allies (or they are unwilling to use nukes) you can have a total war.
Countries these days have a low tolerance for blood. Even the few coffins coming back from overseas is enough to start protests in USA. Some UN countries have wanted to pull back their troops from peacekeeping missions after few casualties. And these were situations where their own civilian populations were safe.
I have to think about this more, because I might be on on to something.