[mpyne]

> But are we sure it's not just nuclear peace we're seeing here?

If it is nuclear peace, it's because of the Americans as well.

NATO doesn't have nukes, its member nations do. And a nation can't use nukes without being nuked in return (which is why the American extension of their nuclear shield over western Europe is so notable).

Even with that, France and the U.K. both didn't trust the U.S. to actually nuke the U.S.S.R. if push came to shove... would the U.S. really put itself in a position where it might be mutually destroyed just to save France and the U.K.?

Well, that's the same question all the non-nuclear members of NATO would be asking, if "nuclear peace" were the only answer. So apparently it's more than that.

[tormeh]

Yeah, but all the great powers of today have nuclear weapons, which is why they can't go to war with each other. That's my point.

[mpyne]

That's somewhat fair (there are still conditions under which war might occur), but my point was that we are seeing a deeper peace than simply "peace between great powers".