So when you say "replaced by the threat of war", what you really mean is having one power assert uncontested control. I consider that to be a very one sided per

So when you say "replaced by the threat of war", what you really mean is having one power assert uncontested control. I consider that to be a very one sided perspective... Yes, the US can exercise power all across the globe, but have you seen how other countries respond to that power? It might prevent military battles, but terrorism is still war, though fought with different tactics. And as far as having a single power goes... That's not a guaranteed promise, either. Look at ancient Rome: They achieved (more or less) unquestionable power and authority over the Mediterranean, and that simply led to decades of civil war. People living together in peace is a myth.