And obviously it's much happier to have large scale war rendered less likely through economic interdependence and development (roughly 1990-now, with no signs o

And obviously it's much happier to have large scale war rendered less likely through economic interdependence and development (roughly 1990-now, with no signs of stopping), vs. mutually assured destruction (how large-scale war was largely prevented 1945-1989). I wonder if humanity would prefer more frequent but less severe wars vs. less frequent but more severe; with nuclear weapons the frequency/odds were very low but the severity of any war existential. From a species perspective, there's probably a strong argument for even 10-100x higher "expected deaths" if it removes infrequent complete destruction from the possibilities.