Asklemmy

43896 readers

980 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

I've got this idea baking because I saw a guy post that it's been as many year from 1971 to 2024 as it was from 1971 to 1918. How do the global wars compare in the two periods? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It occurs to me that this last 1/2 century or so has been globally pretty peaceful. And I wondered if it might even be one of the MOST peaceful 50 years we've had.

I'm inclined to imagine that the Cold War might have kept a lid on larger military aspirations. What do you think, am I deluded?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If we define the end of the Cold War as the collapse of the Soviet Union, that was over 30 years now. Considering other potential flashpoints (e.g., India and Pakistan), I'd say it's more nuclear deterrence in general. No one wants to be the first to get into sustained conventional, symmetrical warfare with nukes on both sides.

We also seem to be seeing a shift in soft power. Now that raw footage of conflict is readily recorded and broadly accessible, regimes aren't able to control messaging like they used to be. Still need public support to wage war, and it's that much harder to obtain when people can see the faces of the people you're killing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

No one wants to be the first to get into sustained conventional, symmetrical warfare with nukes on both sides.

Not to mention no one wants to be the one to start a nuclear exchange, as that would effectively wipe out both participants nations wholeheartedly, and the populations that remains would inherit a wasteland.