Frankly, I find that about as black as black gets.
Playing chicken with the future of the whole world in order to gain a little bit of negotiating leverage? Pure evil.
Playing chicken with the future of the whole world in order to gain a little bit of negotiating leverage? Pure evil.
Otherwise, a hardline faction in any government could have easily pushed for it. Not the mainstream political force in the USA, most probably. (Though, who really knows, looking at Vietnam.) Also, my understanding is that the USSR was in an echo chamber that led it to believe capitalist USA would collapse on itself (hence the "we will bury you" line), so probably they wouldn't have attacked neither. Though the USSR had clearly the edge in a ground war, and I'm sure plenty fanatics could have been found. So there was still that possibility.
Of course, the perfect solution would be a perfectly-balanced economic/political federation of countries, policed by a neutral organization. That couldn't happen then, and that won't happen in the future. Neither Western countries, nor China+Russia, nor specially Arabic countries, will submit to a UN decision that violates their core political tenets, be it justified or not.
We didn't fight the cold war over which side you butter your bread on.
I can't tell if you're complaining about the USSR or the USA...
Joking aside, I know the reasons the west fought the cold war, and I don't think they were justified.