[OkayPhysicist]

It's not a cop-out: there are fundamental qualitative differences between a near-pear conflict, which demands restructuring of a nation's economic activity around supporting the fight, versus the kinds of conflicts the US was involved in post-WWII, where the costs aren't that much different than the steady-state maintenance of our armed forces.

[avgcorrection]

It’s certainly a cop-out if you use such a segmentation to argue that things are peaceful.

[l33t233372]

Peaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace.

Certainly wars between great powers and much smaller countries are more peaceful than near-peer wars.

[avgcorrection]

> Peaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace.

Nope. Any reasonable person will accept an argument about how things are peaceful in relative terms. Factoring in everything and not cherry-picking.

Demanding perfect peace would be way too idealistic.

[l33t233372]

I think we’re saying the same thing. Are we not?

[avgcorrection]

Sure.

[mcguire]

Is it really a cop-out if most people are not involved in a conflict? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-in-state-based-con...

[avgcorrection]

I can’t… I can’t respond to a completely different claim, can I? Or at least I don’t care to. It’s a cop-out if you cherry-pick what is a “war”. That has nothing to do with your interjection.