No, it's literally common sense.
So let's imagine it's the early 1980's and the USSR has launched a massive invasion of Western Europe. Let's then say that they are doing outstandingly and are invading France.
So you think that it would be "common sense" for France not to use two or three tactical nukes against Warsaw Pact spearheads to blunt their invasion? Really? You think they should just let themselves be occupied?
Or how about if Israel was about to be overtaken by their neighbors in a war. Should they just let themselves be occupied (and likely wiped out) instead of using nuclear weapons to crush the invasion?
The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.
This only applies if there is nuclear parity. Even then it's much more complicated than that. You have to take into account who has the first-strike advantage, what kinds of weapons systems they have, where those systems are deployed (to minimize time from launch to impact) ect.
WarGames was not an accurate representation of nuclear strategy.
