[remarkEon]

>In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda)...

This might be the worst possible way to think about the present security situation. In aggregate numbers are there less lives being destroyed today than in the 1990s? Maybe. But what does that have to do with total risk of all out war? You're measuring everything by casualty numbers, and not the actual potential for catastrophe, to say nothing of the risk of actual civil war in Europe precipitated by rapid demographic changeover. Scoff at that all you like, but you'll struggle to find a time in history where they was such a significant culture clash that didn't result in violence.

>You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. >Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s.

That argument is so, so tired. What level of casualties would make you actually take this serious? Do Jihadists need to be killing people monthly? Weekly? Do we need to have a major 9/11-like incident or more Nice style attacks?

>Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".

In my experience boomers are the ones acting like everything is just fine and it's actually folks who are a bit younger and look at history on a munch longer timeline than just the last ~200 years who think we're in for some rough times ahead.