What's relatively new are the concept of mass conscription, economic warfare, and total war. The ability to enact war and destruction on a global and constant level is new. The brief cessations in conflict aren't peace, you're right, but it is also a newer concept that we are constantly in a forever war.

[–] rug_burn@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

While I mostly agree, I never said constant war, but where I will disagree in a sense is, the prospect of total annihilation would have been a factor millennia ago had the technology been there. Pick your era, the Romans, the various Chinese dynasties, the English, etc... if they had the means, they would have likely used it, having zero regard for the impact it would have later, mostly due to a poor understanding of the technology. I do believe, at least between "the big three", meaning the US, Russia and China, nuclear war is an extremely potent deterrent to all out war. It's the "kids who want to be in the club" that worry me, everyone from NK to Israel. It sucks, but the atomic cat is out of the bag in a world we're all forced to live in, and the polarization of politics and other bullshit only work to drive that wedge deeper and push us closer to... bad shit.