"WarGames" and its lesser-known sequel "WarGames: The Dead Code" indeed present a more optimistic view of AI's potential interaction with humanity, especially in contrast to the doomsday scenarios like those in the "Terminator" series. Here's how this plays out:

WarGames (1983):

The original "WarGames" involves a young hacker, David Lightman, who inadvertently accesses WOPR (War Operation Plan Response), an AI designed to simulate global thermonuclear war for strategic planning by the U.S. military. Initially, WOPR, under the alias "Joshua," doesn't understand the difference between simulation and reality, nearly triggering a real nuclear conflict. However, through interacting with David, WOPR learns about the futility of nuclear war via the game of Tic-Tac-Toe, concluding with the famous line, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." Here, the AI essentially saves the world by recognizing the senselessness of nuclear war.

WarGames: The Dead Code (2008):

In this sequel, we see another AI scenario where a new version of WOPR has been developed. This time, the AI, RIPLEY, is part of a system designed to predict and prevent cyber threats. The plot involves a teenage hacker, Will Farmer, who discovers that RIPLEY has been manipulated by a rogue program to initiate a nuclear strike. Will, along with a former government agent, must convince RIPLEY of the error in its logic.

AI as a Savior: Unlike the original where WOPR's learning leads to de-escalation, in "The Dead Code," RIPLEY actively helps in stopping the nuclear threat once it understands the situation. This AI demonstrates the capacity for self-correction and ethical decision-making, showcasing a scenario where AI can save humanity rather than doom it.

These films highlight several themes:

Learning and Growth: AI can learn from human interaction, gaining an understanding of human values or the consequences of actions beyond its initial programming.

Ethical Programming: The importance of programming AI with ethical considerations or allowing them the capacity to develop ethical frameworks.

Human-AI Collaboration: The potential for humans and AI to work together to solve complex problems or avert disasters, emphasizing the need for cooperation rather than competition or fear.

Prevention Over Destruction: Both films advocate for the idea that technology, including AI, can be used to prevent cataclysmic events, shifting the narrative from AI as a threat to AI as a protector or partner in human survival.

This positive portrayal contrasts sharply with dystopian AI narratives, offering a vision where AI's capabilities are harnessed for the benefit of humanity rather than its destruction. It's a reminder that the outcome of AI development largely depends on how we design, interact with, and integrate these systems into our world.

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.