Should the Cold War be considered a war?

The Cold War was not a war, as there was no physical combat

Question: Should the Cold War be considered a war?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the cold war should not be considered a war
Argument‹2 of 6›: The Cold War was not a war, as there was no physical combat

Although there were proxy wars and an arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States, there was no period of physical combat between the two nations at all.

The argument

The Cold War was a global struggle, but should not be considered a war, because the defining feature of war — direct physical combat between the main adversaries — was precisely what never occurred. There was a constant threat of war throughout the period, and that threat shaped budgets, alliances and rhetoric on both sides; but the US never fell to direct conflict with the main aggressor. A confrontation conducted through deterrence, preparation and propaganda is a different kind of thing from one conducted through fighting, and collapsing the two empties the word "war" of its meaning. This period can be eloquently described by the words of French Sociologist and political expert, Raymond Aron: "impossible peace, improbable war." The phrase captures exactly the condition the argument points to. Peace was impossible because neither side would accept the other's legitimacy or lower its guard; war was improbable because neither side was willing to begin the fighting that would have made it one. What lay between those two states was a standoff, and a standoff sustained for decades is better described as an armed rivalry than as a war. Even official framing supports the reading. The government even references the Cold War as "arguing on the world stage that Western-style democracy was superior" — the language of argument and persuasion rather than of battle. On that description, the US's involvement in the Cold War can be boiled down to an ideological disagreement and nothing more: a contest over which system the world should adopt, prosecuted through influence rather than through arms. Calling it a war borrows the moral and historical weight of conflicts in which the adversaries actually met one another in combat, and applies it to a period defined by the fact that the confrontation it anticipated never came.

Premises

[P1]A conflict only counts as a war if it involves direct physical combat between the main adversaries. [P2] The Cold War involved no direct physical combat between the US and the Soviet Union, amounting only to an ideological disagreement under conditions of 'impossible peace, improbable war.' [C] Therefore, the Cold War should not be considered a war.

Counter-arguments

The US has not officially declared war since WW2 despite being active in conflicts, primarily due to the fact that by remaining formally neutral, less responsibility falls on members of the US government. Therefore, an official declaration or documented conflict should not be needed to define a war.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The definition is stipulated and excludes much of what is ordinarily called war. Sieges, blockades and economic strangulation are war-like without direct combat, and requiring the principals to fight each other directly would also disqualify conflicts fought through allies and clients. [Rejecting P2] The historical claim is not accurate as stated. American and Soviet forces did meet in combat during the period, including Soviet pilots flying against American aircraft over Korea, and the era's proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan killed millions while being directed and supplied by both principals. [Rejecting C] Describing the whole as an ideological disagreement and nothing more is hard to sustain against an arms race, a nuclear standoff that came within hours of exchange, and decades of covert action and coups. The definitional question is a real one, but the premises understate what took place.

Proponents cited

Congressional Research Service
“During the Cold War, the effective operation of U.S. democracy at the federal level and lower levels was viewed as helpful for arguing on the world stage that Western-style democracy was superior, for encouraging other countries to adopt that model, and for inspiring people in the Soviet Union and other authoritarian countries to resist authoritarianism and seek change in the direction of more democratic forms of government. The ability of the United State to demonstrate the effectiveness of democracy as a form of government was something that in today’s parlance would be termed an element of U.S. soft power”
Raymond Aron
“Peace is impossible, war is improbable”
George F. Kennan
“The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”