Since the end of WWll, our world has experienced an era of decresead war activity. In most parts of the world, people have learned to live without war. 

But with wars once again taking place on European soil and tensions only increasing on other continents - it is natural to ask: how long is this peace, that we all got used to, going to last? 

This is also not the first time in history we see a large percentage of human population getting used to peace. But after those periods, it usually happened so that war and destruction continued again as if it never stopped. So, can we differentiate our peace from ancient periods of peace that collapsed after some time? 

What is the world going to look like when war erupts again? Is it going to be the last breath of humanity?

Off the top of my head, are you forgetting (in no particular- my head style) War in Korea, Bosnia, Falklands, The Gulf,  the Congo, Ruanda, Viet Nam, India/Pakistan(twice)  Sri Lanka, and on and on to many civil disturbances, border intrusions and where UN forces still hold the peace, we have not been free of war just free of world wars for a bit. We move back and forth to the brink of those most of the time. Having come through through 3 wars and several bouts of civil uprising abroad, myself it is odd to then visit places who were not only touched by what I had experienced and just about survived but who, in fact knew little of most of it. So there is peace in patches much as there is war. Recovery from it all is quite remarkable too - albeit with changes but memory dims with new generations - and the roundabout  still goes on. That's Life.

Priscilla wrote:

Off the top of my head, are you forgetting (in no particular- my head style) War in Korea, Bosnia, Falklands, The Gulf,  the Congo, Ruanda, Viet Nam, India/Pakistan(twice)  Sri Lanka, and on and on to many civil disturbances, border intrusions and where UN forces still hold the peace, we have not been free of war just free of world wars for a bit. We move back and forth to the brink of those most of the time. Having come through through 3 wars and several bouts of civil uprising abroad, myself it is odd to then visit places who were not only touched by what I had experienced and just about survived but who, in fact knew little of most of it. So there is peace in patches much as there is war. Recovery from it all is quite remarkable too - albeit with changes but memory dims with new generations - and the roundabout  still goes on. That's Life.

War activity now in 21st century is by no means comparable to the one before WWll. The approach towards war has also changed. Countries often consider it as a last option. People are very open to negotiations. 

Speaking of European continent, the number of wars in these 80 years is small. Yugoslav wars, Ukraine war and various insurgencies in Caucasus... North America too, with USA involved in oversea campaigns. Much of Asia also remained at relative peace - with the exclusion of Middle East, of course, which was never and probably will never be in a peaceful state. Africa did face a lot of violence even after WWll. 

Most of wars came from the Middle East or as a product of Cold War, other than that there wasn't the familiar violent diplomatic relationship between countries - with countries threatening each other for every little problem.

I do believe that historians in the future will refer to this period as to some kind of semi-peaceful world order, with partially insignificant conflicts happening from time to time instead of a large engagement between the great powers. Also with the declarative pacifist policy of practically all nations of the world (which is not the case in practice, but is insane that we even got it in theory).But it is very quickly collapsing for sure.

it depends where these historians of the future hang out. There has been awful bloody conflict since 1945 and many have suffered from it. Those who lived through such times in Cambodia or Vietnam or the Gulf and on and on will not think it a time of peace nor of much negotiation. There has always been peddling beneath troubled waters yo forestall conflict.... Peace in our Time, stuff, yes but the binding ropes of them wear thin. Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam do not fit into your notion of where wars start. It can be about land (Kashmir) or whatever triggered Nam and Cambodia (It took 66 foreign aid groups to sort out the aftermath there so do not dismiss its impact.) Unlike an overall body rash as with measles war since 1945 has been like small pox - nasty outbreaks  and leaving scars. Have you no contact with any one close to these events? From killing fields to the atrocities in Bosnia and on and on most have touched me in some way as it happens either directly or through friends, war correspondents or just meeting people who were there. (I also had relations in all the theatres of war 1939/45 - I did not see my father for 5 years and stuff like that. So I do have a glimmering of comparison  - any bomb dropped near is much like another regardless of the size of the conflict as are meeting peoples wracked from torture or others trying to pull a shattered people back to normal and front line writers - none would call  these the peaceful years where they have been. And believe me it can come on  very, very, swift feet much as Kuwait  was invaded etc and  finding yourself totally unprepared when war  suddenly starts is very alarming with family evacuation  flights 3 days later and hope that your little child will be looked after. I wonder if anyone can list the number of total war free days on this planet since  1945.

I completely agree with you that various wars have erupted since WWll, and in various regions of the world - with, indeed, every year since then being violent in some part of the world. I personally also had an experience with such a war (not directly, on the battlefield) but as I am a Montenegrin, I have experienced the disgusting ethnic division between muslim and christian populations in my city, the sanctions and everything else. 

And I know that a lot of people experienced even direct combact in those wars, as well as how bloody it was. But to be honest, if a historian from (for example) Iraq is asked whether this period was peaceful in like 50 years - can he answer no? If we are talking about the condition in Iraq, then certainly he has the right to do so. But if talking globally, then surely we can. 

Look at those wars. Most of them are coming from the same places. Traditionally unstable and generally violent regions. But they don't really make up the entire world. If you look at the conditions in South America, North America, Europe excluding the Balkans and Ukraine, Eastern Asia, Central Asia, Australia - things are relatively fine. 

So, the situation is actually good compared to how it was before in history. There is no combat between the great powers, although tensions are rising. As I said before, this is not the first long period of peace. Pax Romana or Pax Britannica are fine examples that we can compare to. In those times, the world didn't experience peace in every single corner of the world. In fact, far from that. But historians still refer to it with these names, because in the global picture - things were a little more peaceful than before. 

The interesting thing is that some historians already refer to our era as "Long Peace" or "Pax Americana". It is, in fact, only a question whether historians are going to keep this in the future or they are going to modify it. 

Also, think for example of the current moment. Real, hard, full-scale combat is taking place only in Ukraine and Gaza. Rest of the world is not at peace, but conflicts are mostly frozen, or high tensions are present - but there is no combat. That indicates something has certainly changed. And not just right now, we can see it started after WWll.

The Pax Romana was confined to a relatively small part of the globe and during the Pax Britannica there were numerous wars including the Taiping Rebellion, one of the bloodiest wars in history.

Tim