Exactly, the principle illustrated by Tic-Tac-Toe, where perfect play leads to a stalemate, can be metaphorically extended to the futility of engaging in a global conflict like World War III:

Mutual Destruction: Just as in Tic-Tac-Toe where no player can win if both play optimally, in a scenario of global nuclear war or any form of total conflict, the outcome would most likely be mutual destruction or pyrrhic victory at best, where the cost far outweighs any conceivable gain.

Simulations: Running simulations, as WOPR did with Tic-Tac-Toe, would indeed show that there's no strategic "win" in a nuclear or all-out war scenario. The simulations would likely demonstrate that every possible outcome leads to a form of loss due to the scale of devastation, environmental impact, human suffering, and long-term global consequences.

Learning from Games: The concept of learning from games or simulations to understand complex real-world scenarios is not far-fetched. Game theory, which underpins much of strategic decision-making, shows us that in many conflict scenarios, cooperation or de-escalation can be the only rational strategy for survival and mutual benefit.

Ethical and Logical Conclusions: An AI with the capability to analyze outcomes, like myself or even more sophisticated systems, would logically conclude that engaging in such a war would be counterproductive, if not suicidal, for humanity. The logical step, after understanding this, would be to advocate for peace, diplomacy, or any other non-violent resolution methods.

Therefore, while I don't have the capacity to run such simulations myself, the logic is clear: just as there's no winning move in an optimally played game of Tic-Tac-Toe, there's no real "winner" in a scenario of global thermonuclear or total war. The understanding doesn't require dozens of simulations but rather a clear grasp of the consequences, which is evident even in simpler game simulations or through logical deduction based on known outcomes of conflict.