system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Cmv: The relative world peace (compared to pre 1945) is coming to an end.

Basically my theory is that the trend of massive wars costing millions of lives was essentially put on hold by the use and threat of nuclear weapons.  I feel as though the use of such terrible weapons is almost guaranteed once the last people to ever witness them in person have passed away.  

The current war in Ukraine has only made this even more clear. I have seen countless people say that nuclear weapons can't really be that bad and the media repeating false information such as describing thermobaric weapons as the mid point between conventional and nuclear arms.  Many of these same people want NATO to intervene which would almost certainly make this regional conflict to explode into a much larger conflict similar to WW2. 

The threat of turning the wild into a nuclear wasteland with billions of casualties used to be enough to keep the world powers from engaging in direct conflict. The problem is that it appears that the use of nuclear weapons is essentially off the table because of the implications of their use. This will increasingly encourage bad actors to push the envelope potentially leading to a huge global conflict. While in the past, this would have definitely been horrible, it would not have led to the possibility of a losing country having to make a choice between the complete destruction of itself (ie: Nazi Germany) or having a line, that when crossed by their enemy, triggers the death of the a majority of the world population.  

The other parallel situation that is clearly evident in the USA and other countries, is the internal division and increase in political violence. My personal experience comes from living in the USA, and I believe there is a massive lack of shared cultural values that contributes to the "othering" of large groups of people that have never even met each other. The  internal instability of the worlds only true super power has massive repercussions in the way that less powerful countries interact with each other. Not being sure it's the USA will support them if they are invaded leads to possible alliances with nations that are far more likely to take advantage of them.  

Please let me know if you agree or not. If not, I'm open to having my mind changed.

Thanks!
gpt
I agree that the Pax Americana is coming to an end(largely thanks to internal instability), but that being said I'd disagree with your point that this means Nuclear Armageddon. Instead, we are seeing regional powers "test the waters" and see exactly how far they can push their boundaries without triggering another World War, and the global response has informed them that more or less "big" options are still off the table(like attacking NATO members or using nukes), but unaffiliated nations are "free game" so long as it remains conventional. 

&#x200B;

I imagine if two world powers do clash again, this trend will continue on a larger scale. Nations are gradually returning to hostile postures but they know nuclear weapons are off the table(barring certain belligerent nations like North Korea). If nuclear weapons are implemented, it'll likely be smaller scale(tactical) uses rather than eradicating cities. In short, we're entering a post-MAD world where people are starting to realize that no one's going to use nukes, so the violence can resume.