I never got that logic—the US has been in armed conflict in various forms since the end of WWII, whether directly or through the CIA. It seems more like nukes enable violence from my perspective.

The world was a much more violent place before pax americana.

> The world was a much more violent place before pax americana.

Europe, for sure is a lot less violent, as for the rest of the world? I won't believe that on face value; south America specifically got more violent, and I suspect everywhere else is a wash (or is not attributable to American force projection). I attribute the peace in Europe to the EU rather than pax Americana.

The EU was founded in 1993.

A company named "Apple, Inc." didn't exist prior to 2007 either - that's just splitting hairs, IMO, a rose by any other name &tc, &tc. I assumed anyone who has passing familiarity with Europe's history and WWII knew exactly what I meant by "EU" - you may read it as "the European project", if that dunks your crumpet.

Being involved in conflicts where hundreds or thousands die is mostly preferable to being involved in wars where tens or hundreds of thousands die.

Overall violent death is down on planet Earth drastically over time.

Food for thought: The Wars in the Congo are a counter example. 2nd Congo War is thought to have caused 5.4 million deaths and officially ended in 2003, just 18 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Arguably that's the exception that proves the rule. Note how none of the great powers were really that involved (outside of the US providing "advisors").

It’s like the big brother who says, “nobody can tease my sister except me.” There’s less teasing— he’s the only one doing it.

But I’m with you, on balance wmds are terrible things. One use of them could outweigh all the violence they prevented.

It seems relatively peaceful: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace