Nope. Neither in theory nor in practice.

In theory, you might think that nuclear weapons would make land war impossible with another nuclear power. But in fact the US realized very early on that a lack of ground presence meant that their only option to respond to Soviet aggression would be an all-out attack, which would invite a huge attack in response. If your options are "lose West Berlin, or lose everything," then your deterrent is not credible (because West Berlin is nice and everything... but everything is everything). So they in fact beefed up their ground forces considerably in Europe (and armed them with tiny nuclear weapons).

In practice, the result of nuclear weapons was to make it so that direct conflict between nuclear powers was rare. Instead, proxy wars took place. So the Korea, Vietnam, and Afghan wars were all examples of these kinds of proxy wars. And all made extensive use of ground combat. So even for nuclear powers, ground combat capability remained essential.

See e.g. Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, to get a full sense of how nuclear and non-nuclear doctrines changed dramatically in the US over the course of the Cold War. There was only a very brief moment in the 1940s when the US thought it could dramatically cut conventional forces and instead rely on nuclear weapons.