[Samildanach]

I disagree. All wars would still happen, there would just be a new "agreement" to not use nuclear weapons in armed conflict. Mutual annhialation is long past being workable, because there are too many now who just want to see the globe go boom. Not everyone is interested in saving the world, the people, or the peace, if it can't be theirs, or all their way of thought at least.

Actually I disagree with that.....what you have is a complete standoff similar to the US/North Korea situation. Nukes tend to neutralise large scale invasions and you are correct in saying there would be a treaty to agree not to use nuclear weapons...but if I was a small country I would definitely add the clause EXCEPT in case of a large scale invasion...and there are a LOT of small countries out there. Can you imagine if you tried to mobilise troops to invade Iraq and Saddam had had nuclear capability? Say goodbye to 300k soldiers.
At best I would say that it forces countries to use covert action as a primary weapon which would be a good thing.
There is no point launching nukes against tens of soldiers after all. This would also pretty much negate civilian casualties as covert ops tend not to target civilians being closer to a scalpel for specific objectives rather than an all purpose meat cleaver.