I was under the impression that most prolonged conflicts prior to the 20th century involved well-matched opponents: Greek city states, Rome versus Carthage (except possibly the third Carthaginian war), the Three Kingdoms period in China, and practically all of European history post 1648. Then in the twentieth century alone we start with WWI and WWII (the German military did not view the war against the Soviet Union as winnable), and end up with a great number of proxy wars in the mid-East and Asia.
The trade argument is strange considering that the world economy was more tightly integrated in 1914 than it is today. It is probably correct that nuclear weapons exert something of a stabilizing force, although it is disconcerting that the nash equilibrium for games of mutual-assured destruction requires random detonation by both parties in order to demonstrate irrationality and establish deterrence.
The trade argument is strange considering that the world economy was more tightly integrated in 1914 than it is today. It is probably correct that nuclear weapons exert something of a stabilizing force, although it is disconcerting that the nash equilibrium for games of mutual-assured destruction requires random detonation by both parties in order to demonstrate irrationality and establish deterrence.