I don't think the comparison with nukes is very useful when it comes to trade. The are lots of sub-optimal things (some) people do and you can't treat everything in that regard like the world is going to end (because of it).
The usual economic theory is that trade wars (and protectionism in general) aren't usually profitable except to a minority [in each country], who benefits from the protectionism. (Alas the interaction of that with politics, e.g. a swing minority, has not been enough explored--quantitatively--in my view, although plenty of things have been written qualitatively about that, e.g.)
Perhaps a more apt comparison (of sub-optimal policies being a world threat) would involve global warming being profitable to fossil fuel (vested interests) etc. Unsurprisingly, less trade and economic activity also means less global warming as recent data has shown during the Covid-19 lockdowns and travel bans. So, in some sense, one could say it's even the other way around when it comes to trade because "economic apocalypse" and "ecological apocalypse" are not necessarily the same thing. (Although in a all-out nuclear war they are both likely to happen. In fact any "big enough" ecological catastrophe will also mean economic catastrophe.)