Just to clarify: are you referring to a nuclear strike or conventional war? There may have been proponents of the former, especially within the NSC, but this decision carried some major obstacles.

First, ICBMs had not yet been invented and nuclear weaponry was not as powerful as it would become in the ensuing decades, so it wasn't as simple as a matter of just lobbing missiles. Defeating the USSR would still be an enormously challenging task.

Second, domestic audiences would not be in favor of war. The Soviets and Uncle Joe were allies against Nazi tyranny, and people were not exactly clamoring for war in the wake of the the bloodiest war in human history.

Finally, they did understand what sort of precedent it would set. A nuclear strike would solidify the use of nuclear weapons as an acceptable form of war or force the U.S. to police the entire world to ensure non-proliferation.

I definitely think that Secretary of State Dulles played a significant role in the avoidance of war. A critic of nuclear weapons, Dulles was generally anti war and actually helped to draft the UN charter, which aimed to prevent another world war at all costs. Here's what he had to say about the matter:

"If we, as a professedly Christian nation, feel morally free to use atomic energy in that way, men elsewhere will accept that verdict. Atomic weapons will be looked upon as a normal part of the arsenal of war and the stage will be set for the sudden and final destruction of the world"

Basically, Dulles was all about containment of the Soviets, by building up NATO and other alliances. An all out war would surely include nuclear weapons so other methods were used.

How about the practicality of such a war?

• The Red army still had numerical superiority in many conventional weapons.
• Important European nations like France, Italy and Greece had big communist parties which would form great difficulties.
• Early on Tito and Stalin had not yet split, just like Mao and Stalin. With extra western pressure they might not have split at all giving the US two more important enemies.
• What good would these bombs be? Where in Russia could they strike? Air superiority would take a long time to achieve and flying deep into Soviet territory would be extremely dangerous. When you do get there it's not likely the Soviets would give up because of these bombs? Lot's of cities were nearly completely destroyed in 1941-1945 I don't think it can be expected the Soviet Union would surrender over the loss of a few more.