What’s worse, repeated cycles of conventional conflicts between major powers, or peace between major powers with a ~1% chance per year of total annihilation? (

What’s worse, repeated cycles of conventional conflicts between major powers, or peace between major powers with a ~1% chance per year of total annihilation? (Adjust the percentage as you see fit. I think that’s a reasonable guess but it’s definitely a guess.) I think the second one is clearly worse. The idea that nuclear weapons are good because they’ve resulted in peace only makes sense if you think the chances of a nuclear world war are negligible. I don’t think that’s true but some people seem to.