Well I wouldn't say it's peaceful now, or has been in the past... Actually there's few years that the US wasn't at war.
Not to say there isn't war, but they're small wars with a million deaths being a big one.
More people died in Second World War[1] than in all wars since then combined. If not for the Russian Civil War and WW2, the same would probably true for the Great War.
War is terrible, but the fraction of people who died in wars the last 75 years is substantially smaller than the 75 years before that and I do think that is worth celebrating. I am not confident this will hold for the next 75 years
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Do you think that maybe the reluctance to engage in large wars over the last 75 years is a benefit of the nuclear deterrent rather than political ideologies, or world view narratives, or hegemons?
Just kind of noticing that the 75 year figure you put out there kind of dovetails nicely with the existence of the nuclear deterrent in multiple global arsenals.
Obviously, I believe in the nuclear deterrent. Just wondering if there are other people out there willing to admit that it has been the best tool in mankind's toolbox for obliging people to talk to each other rather than go to war.
The problem with weapons is that usually weapons end up being used. And with the US now no longer working against proliferation the risks are going up.
99% of us got to grow up without the fear of military violence, and go about our lives.
They didn't say there were no wars, only that that are less deaths.
Not sure what the point of your comment is in this thread. The premise that is being discussed is volume of world wide war. Not war itself.