NationStates

Everyone here ignores the fact that a country like Russia or China will never surpass the United States in terms of cultural influence. If cultural influence was ever passed, it would be by the ending of a dominant cultural power. I mean seriously, do you guys think that Europe, Latin America, etc. would be quick to latch on to Chinese or Russian movies and music???

And why do you guys think land-grab and territorial expansion is still important in the 21st century? If anything its a sign of weakness and simple inability to focus on your own populace.

Also simply look at the US compared to other countries, it's blessed by geography and can project its power almost everywhere by cultural, economic, and military means.

In terms of an actual superpower surpassing the US, if one does, I believe in terms of total power, they will never match how powerful the US was. The US is the most powerful economic, cultural, and military power. No country has ever reached such a high level. While maybe someday, if the world doesn't begin de-globalizing (which would likely be a trend started by the US), and China surpasses the US economically, it will still not be able to surpass the US' military and cultural power. For Russia, it may surpass the US military, but won't surpass it economically or culturally. Ultimately, every one of these powers will still have at least one weakness to the US. One thing about Russia and China is that the people don't control the countries actions. One of the the US' weaknesses is also what empowers it; its populace. The populace drives innovation, economic, social, and political progress, and essentially controls what the US does, good or bad. Ultimately, the only way the US will leave the global stage is if it chooses to, and is pulled back from within, by its populace (remember Vietnam?). Luckily, the United States has the luxury of the choice (as well as simply being to powerful and stable to become un-important).

The North America Union wrote:Everyone here ignores the fact that a country like Russia or China will never surpass the United States in terms of cultural influence. If cultural influence was ever passed, it would be by the ending of a dominant cultural power. I mean seriously, do you guys think that Europe, Latin America, etc. would be quick to latch on to Chinese or Russian movies and music???

China is already influencing the output of Hollywood and C-Pop may well surf in on the back of the K-Pop wave - then where will your cultural influence be?


Oh and remember English isnt actually American

Cetacea wrote:China is already influencing the output of Hollywood and C-Pop may well surf in on the back of the K-Pop wave - then where will your cultural influence be?


Oh and remember English isnt actually American

Don't believe I ever claimed English to be American...

This wasn't supposed to be a American vs. China argument (that you just made it into), the original question was if this is the end of American influence, and my personal answer is no. You seem to have taken a personal attack stance against me and the United States.

My response:
China is not a consumer state, it caters itself to other countries. A country that follows and caters, a country that limits expression and personal freedom, one where you do not have to innovate to succeed, will never be able to influence any country outside of economics. I don't believe the civilized western world (besides maybe Australia...) will be quick to suddenly switch to loving state owned Chinese movie companies and the typical movies they make that are at best copying the classic Hollywood suspense or action movie, but in some massive Chinese metropolis, and music that at best is copying the Koreans and how they achieved success. If anything, countries will begin reverting back to their own material, and stuff they know, not some new Chinese unoriginal, or maybe some true original but 'life lesson crap'.

And as for where "my" cultural influence will be, likely where it always has been, pro US countries (a lot of Europe) and most western civilized nations (as well as Latin America to a lesser extent).

May I ask your nationality to get a better understanding of your stance?

So long, and thanks for all the fish

The North America Union wrote:

Cetacea wrote:China is already influencing the output of Hollywood and C-Pop may well surf in on the back of the K-Pop wave - then where will your cultural influence be?


Oh and remember English isnt actually American

Don't believe I ever claimed English to be American...

This wasn't supposed to be a American vs. China argument (that you just made it into), the original question was if this is the end of American influence, and my personal answer is no. You seem to have taken a personal attack stance against me and the United States.

My response:
China is not a consumer state, it caters itself to other countries. A country that follows and caters, a country that limits expression and personal freedom, one where you do not have to innovate to succeed, will never be able to influence any country outside of economics. I don't believe the civilized western world (besides maybe Australia...) will be quick to suddenly switch to loving state owned Chinese movie companies and the typical movies they make that are at best copying the classic Hollywood suspense or action movie, but in some massive Chinese metropolis, and music that at best is copying the Koreans and how they achieved success. If anything, countries will begin reverting back to their own material, and stuff they know, not some new Chinese unoriginal, or maybe some true original but 'life lesson crap'.

And as for where "my" cultural influence will be, likely where it always has been, pro US countries (a lot of Europe) and most western civilized nations (as well as Latin America to a lesser extent).

May I ask your nationality to get a better understanding of your stance?

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Maybe you should rethink thecultural influence of the US and see how many things are in it.The cultural hegemony of the United States began in the 1980s.Compared with the Soviet Union, US's pwer in an advantageous position at that time.Maybe that history is too old for you.When the United States first landed on the moon, the economy improved ,the Soviet Union declined .Before that, there were a lot of people all over the world who yearned for communism rather than American culture.Cultural hegemony is a very complicated concept,american media's incorporation of politics into cultural products has begun to damage its influence.

Luziyca wrote:As a Canadian, I am looking forward to the day that we at the very least get a bipolar world again. While Canada will probably remain under America's thumb until the day America collapses, the erosion of American influence around the world would be a huge positive for humanity, especially given America's foreign policy has, in general, been "invade other countries/overthrow their governments and slurp up their precious lifeblood" to those who are way weaker than it.

Part of me hopes Trump wins a second term, if only for the sole reason that American hegemony will probably be gone, or close to by the time he leaves office.

It wouldn't have a positive impact for humanity, as the nation coming into the mix is militarily hostile to all its neighbors. This is probably the worst time for humanity since nuclear weapons came on the scene, and the weapons of today are far worse than those that existed during the cold war. America and China going to war, would end 'peace' for anyone, and the South China Sea dispute is rapidly getting worse as the years go on. A lot of folks think that America spontaneously weakening would make the world a better place, when in reality it's adversaries have their own geo-political and territorial ambitions.

New Rogernomics wrote:

Luziyca wrote:As a Canadian, I am looking forward to the day that we at the very least get a bipolar world again. While Canada will probably remain under America's thumb until the day America collapses, the erosion of American influence around the world would be a huge positive for humanity, especially given America's foreign policy has, in general, been "invade other countries/overthrow their governments and slurp up their precious lifeblood" to those who are way weaker than it.

Part of me hopes Trump wins a second term, if only for the sole reason that American hegemony will probably be gone, or close to by the time he leaves office.

It wouldn't have a positive impact for humanity, as the nation coming into the mix is militarily hostile to all its neighbors. This is probably the worst time for humanity since nuclear weapons came on the scene, and the weapons of today are far worse than those that existed during the cold war. America and China going to war, would end 'peace' for anyone, and the South China Sea dispute is rapidly getting worse as the years go on. A lot of folks think that America spontaneously weakening would make the world a better place, when in reality it's adversaries have their own geo-political and territorial ambitions.

And even if China didn't become fully dominant, a multi-polar world itself is inherently more unstable and prone to large conflicts (whether through actual warfare or otherwise).

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Maybe you should rethink thecultural influence of the US and see how many things are in it.The cultural hegemony of the United States began in the 1980s.Compared with the Soviet Union, US's pwer in an advantageous position at that time.Maybe that history is too old for you.When the United States first landed on the moon, the economy improved ,the Soviet Union declined .Before that, there were a lot of people all over the world who yearned for communism rather than American culture.Cultural hegemony is a very complicated concept,american media's incorporation of politics into cultural products has begun to damage its influence.

The introduction of politics hasn't helped for sure...No need to personally attack me, I know my history, and if there is something I don't know, I'll happily research it. When you say the economy improved because of the moon landing, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What actually happened throughout the sixties was the baby boomers being introduced into the economy (not a sole cause, many things lead to an even more larger economy). Maybe that history is too old for you (see I can say it too!). The moon landing was certainly important to spreading the United States' cultural footprint. The Soviets were simply cursed by geography, along with many other factors which never allowed their economy to further develop. The United States cultural footprint is definitely a complicated subject. The way most people are answering the forum question seem to think that US cultural influence will be passed on to another power. However, it took very specific causes for the United States achieve such a high level, one that will likely never come about in the 21st century. There are current trends among countries that suggest they will begin turning to themselves.

Anyways, whatever the case, it will be a good show. Obviously there's a lot more to this subject and I blatantly oversimplified it, but as I said I personally don't believe many countries will be quick to suddenly switch to another superpower (instead of themselves as an independent power, or the U.S.), especially one they do not like (as well as the other reasons I listed way above).

Stellar Colonies wrote:

New Rogernomics wrote: It wouldn't have a positive impact for humanity, as the nation coming into the mix is militarily hostile to all its neighbors. This is probably the worst time for humanity since nuclear weapons came on the scene, and the weapons of today are far worse than those that existed during the cold war. America and China going to war, would end 'peace' for anyone, and the South China Sea dispute is rapidly getting worse as the years go on. A lot of folks think that America spontaneously weakening would make the world a better place, when in reality it's adversaries have their own geo-political and territorial ambitions.

And even if China didn't become fully dominant, a multi-polar world itself is inherently more unstable and prone to large conflicts (whether through actual warfare or otherwise).

On the contrary, a mutipolar world is better for everyone because the multiple powers keep each other from screwing the little guys too much. Just look at how many nations america has brutally heinously raped, destroying their everything and ruining the lives of their people over the decades since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Purpelia wrote:On the contrary, a mutipolar world is better for everyone because the multiple powers keep each other from screwing the little guys too much. Just look at how many nations america has brutally heinously raped, destroying their everything and ruining the lives of their people over the decades since the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Versailles - Washington system after WW1 (with 5 major empires: Britain, US, France, Japan, and Italy) showed us why a multi-polar world is a bad idea. It was unstable with huge quarrels between Japan and Italy vs the US and Britain, due to how the Washington Naval Treaty gave the US and UK an unfair advantage over the other two rising empires. Especially Japan, it wanted more.

Picairn wrote:

Purpelia wrote:On the contrary, a mutipolar world is better for everyone because the multiple powers keep each other from screwing the little guys too much. Just look at how many nations america has brutally heinously raped, destroying their everything and ruining the lives of their people over the decades since the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Versailles - Washington system after WW1 (with 5 major empires: Britain, US, France, Japan, and Italy) showed us why a multi-polar world is a bad idea. It was unstable with huge quarrels between Japan and Italy vs the US and Britain, due to how the Washington Naval Treaty gave the US and UK an unfair advantage over the other two rising empires. Especially Japan, it wanted more.

They didn't have nukes however. Nukes prevent world wars between major powers completely. Notice how no nation with them has ever been attacked directly in a war.
So that only leaves big powers picking on little nations without nukes. And a multipolar world actually protects small nations.

Picairn wrote:

Purpelia wrote:On the contrary, a mutipolar world is better for everyone because the multiple powers keep each other from screwing the little guys too much. Just look at how many nations america has brutally heinously raped, destroying their everything and ruining the lives of their people over the decades since the Soviet Union collapsed.

The Versailles - Washington system after WW1 (with 5 major empires: Britain, US, France, Japan, and Italy) showed us why a multi-polar world is a bad idea. It was unstable with huge quarrels between Japan and Italy vs the US and Britain, due to how the Washington Naval Treaty gave the US and UK an unfair advantage over the other two rising empires. Especially Japan, it wanted more.

But the world after 1945 also haove 5 major power:Britain, US, France,Soviet Union and PRC.And compared with other countries, they all have an absolute advantage in military force.Since the advent of nuclear weapons, there has been no war between them（they use Proxy war）

The North America Union wrote:

Cetacea wrote:China is already influencing the output of Hollywood and C-Pop may well surf in on the back of the K-Pop wave - then where will your cultural influence be?


Oh and remember English isnt actually American

Don't believe I ever claimed English to be American...

This wasn't supposed to be a American vs. China argument (that you just made it into), the original question was if this is the end of American influence, and my personal answer is no. You seem to have taken a personal attack stance against me and the United States.

My response:
China is not a consumer state, it caters itself to other countries. A country that follows and caters, a country that limits expression and personal freedom, one where you do not have to innovate to succeed, will never be able to influence any country outside of economics. I don't believe the civilized western world (besides maybe Australia...) will be quick to suddenly switch to loving state owned Chinese movie companies and the typical movies they make that are at best copying the classic Hollywood suspense or action movie, but in some massive Chinese metropolis, and music that at best is copying the Koreans and how they achieved success. If anything, countries will begin reverting back to their own material, and stuff they know, not some new Chinese unoriginal, or maybe some true original but 'life lesson crap'.

And as for where "my" cultural influence will be, likely where it always has been, pro US countries (a lot of Europe) and most western civilized nations (as well as Latin America to a lesser extent).

May I ask your nationality to get a better understanding of your stance?

So long, and thanks for all the fish

You have misunderstood my stance its not US v China per se but rather counter to your argument that China will never surpass the US cultural influence. It was you who made the statement “do you guys think that Europe... would be quick to latch on to Chinese or Russian movies or music”

I was pointing out that many Westerners already have latched on to Chinese music and Wuxia movies. As others have stated the US cultural influence in the global market has already shifted and Chinese consumers (and Chinese censors) are already becoming leading players in that global cultural influence. The shift in politics has lead to a decline in US hegemony and at the moment we cant really predict where the political pressures of China and even India, Africa and Europe will take things, especially given its rising influence of the Chinese young middle class.

The only thing that I am sure of is that English will remain the global lingua franca but cultural influence is moving ...

It's a difficult moment for America's influence because its internal politics and tensions aren't helping the "brand" and it isn't in a great place to sell the "freedom, democracy and cheeseburgers" message given the erratic and ideologically incoherent narrative of Trumpism.

However, there's also increasing concern about China's neocolonialism and internal policy and Europe is having internal spats as well. The position the US had following the fall of the Soviet Union was always going to be a temporary one, nobody dominates forever and every system has its gaps and inconsistencies that tend to give rise to an opposing force. American global influence isn't going to disappear, we're just returning to multipolar politics.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

New Rogernomics wrote: It wouldn't have a positive impact for humanity, as the nation coming into the mix is militarily hostile to all its neighbors. This is probably the worst time for humanity since nuclear weapons came on the scene, and the weapons of today are far worse than those that existed during the cold war. America and China going to war, would end 'peace' for anyone, and the South China Sea dispute is rapidly getting worse as the years go on. A lot of folks think that America spontaneously weakening would make the world a better place, when in reality it's adversaries have their own geo-political and territorial ambitions.

And even if China didn't become fully dominant, a multi-polar world itself is inherently more unstable and prone to large conflicts (whether through actual warfare or otherwise).

Just because there hasn't been a war between large, industrialized countries since the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't mean there haven't been large conflicts since then. Hell, the two largest conflicts since the end of WWII were both fought during the era of so-called hegemonic stability.

Cetacea wrote:
You have misunderstood my stance its not US v China per se but rather counter to your argument that China will never surpass the US cultural influence. It was you who made the statement “do you guys think that Europe... would be quick to latch on to Chinese or Russian movies or music”

I was pointing out that many Westerners already have latched on to Chinese music and Wuxia movies. As others have stated the US cultural influence in the global market has already shifted and Chinese consumers (and Chinese censors) are already becoming leading players in that global cultural influence. The shift in politics has lead to a decline in US hegemony and at the moment we cant really predict where the political pressures of China and even India, Africa and Europe will take things, especially given its rising influence of the Chinese young middle class.

The only thing that I am sure of is that English will remain the global lingua franca but cultural influence is moving ...

Sorry for misunderstanding. Anyways, if the United States' cultural influence diminishes more, I expect it to be dispersed back to individual countries, more then another one country. You've probably heard enough of my view, so I'll leave it there.

Poltica wrote:So I'm going to start this by saying, yes, I'm an American, and no, this isn't all Trumps fault. The reason American hegemony and global influence is ending is because it is the natural order of things. No nation stays in its Golden Age for long, and America is seeing the effects of that. Yes, many of Trump's decisions have hastened America's downfall, but to say that this angry, orange man is the cause of all our problems is a lie. It is simply the fact that America never realized that its Golden Age ended a while ago. We have refused to adapt and have relied on the fact that the rest of the world looked at America as its big brother, someone to emulate. Now, the world tries to ignore America as it struggles with it getting its act together. While we basked in our glory, the Old World decided to catch up and surpass us. My hypothesis is that if Trump is reelected, America will collapse in the next few decades. If Trump is not elected, then, depending on the new President's choices, America might yet survive, or at the very least live for another century, but we won't see America be making the world's choices for it.

So, NSG, what do you think?

Are there people in America who think it is wrong to send their troops to a foreign country ?

Poltica wrote:So I'm going to start this by saying, yes, I'm an American, and no, this isn't all Trumps fault. The reason American hegemony and global influence is ending is because it is the natural order of things. No nation stays in its Golden Age for long, and America is seeing the effects of that. Yes, many of Trump's decisions have hastened America's downfall, but to say that this angry, orange man is the cause of all our problems is a lie. It is simply the fact that America never realized that its Golden Age ended a while ago. We have refused to adapt and have relied on the fact that the rest of the world looked at America as its big brother, someone to emulate. Now, the world tries to ignore America as it struggles with it getting its act together. While we basked in our glory, the Old World decided to catch up and surpass us. My hypothesis is that if Trump is reelected, America will collapse in the next few decades. If Trump is not elected, then, depending on the new President's choices, America might yet survive, or at the very least live for another century, but we won't see America be making the world's choices for it.

So, NSG, what do you think?

I hope America leaves the global sphere. The result of our internationalist and interventionist policies have resulted in total bloodbath worldwide.

I would say the most famous and most damning example of American interventionism is the Middle East. In this instance, I don't blame America for entering the Middle East. I blame Israel.

For America to start working on itself and make itself great again, we're going to have to cut all ties with Israel and shut down immigration forever.

Paleoconservative Nationalists wrote:I hope America leaves the global sphere. The result of our internationalist and interventionist policies have resulted in total bloodbath worldwide.

I would say the most famous and most damning example of American interventionism is the Middle East. In this instance, I don't blame America for entering the Middle East. I blame Israel.

For America to start working on itself and make itself great again, we're going to have to cut all ties with Israel and shut down immigration forever.

The first paragraph was great, the second not entirely disagreeable, but the third...

We have no right to close the borders to land we stole, and we have no right to deny people the opportunity to live in relative safety to other places. We can be a part of global society without murdering people in third world countries or isolating ourselves.

As for the bit on Israel, you have it the other way around. Israel commits war crimes with impunity because they're close to their buddies in the U.S, but they don't have much influence over them beyond the arms supply they're getting. The U.S. goes into all these wars to profit from them, not because Israel wants them to happen.

America was never great, and as long as it's run by the current system it never will be. Don't blame any race or religion for our atrocities, blame the influence of the ultrawealthy.

New Rogernomics wrote:

Luziyca wrote:As a Canadian, I am looking forward to the day that we at the very least get a bipolar world again. While Canada will probably remain under America's thumb until the day America collapses, the erosion of American influence around the world would be a huge positive for humanity, especially given America's foreign policy has, in general, been "invade other countries/overthrow their governments and slurp up their precious lifeblood" to those who are way weaker than it.

Part of me hopes Trump wins a second term, if only for the sole reason that American hegemony will probably be gone, or close to by the time he leaves office.

It wouldn't have a positive impact for humanity, as the nation coming into the mix is militarily hostile to all its neighbors. This is probably the worst time for humanity since nuclear weapons came on the scene, and the weapons of today are far worse than those that existed during the cold war. America and China going to war, would end 'peace' for anyone, and the South China Sea dispute is rapidly getting worse as the years go on. A lot of folks think that America spontaneously weakening would make the world a better place, when in reality it's adversaries have their own geo-political and territorial ambitions.

In the short term, I admit that America collapsing would be terrible for humanity, given how the world economy hinges on America being in existence. But in the long run, I believe it would be a huge positive for humanity, particularly given that any new superpower that rises in its place (i.e. China or maybe the EU) would not exert quite as much influence on us as America, by virtue of them being further away from where Canada is.

The United States has been going down the drain for a long time. Much longer than people actually think. Pointless wars, treating healthcare like a privilege instead of a right, putting young adults into thousands of dollars in debt in the name of a "good education", it's just culminating to its demise. I can also think of many countries that are much better than the US. They may not need to fade away economically, but they definitely don't need to be a global "superpower" anymore.

Punished UMN wrote:Just because there hasn't been a war between large, industrialized countries since the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't mean there haven't been large conflicts since then. Hell, the two largest conflicts since the end of WWII were both fought during the era of so-called hegemonic stability.

And than both of the great powers realized just how dangerous it is to do so and they stopped fighting serious wars for the next eternity. Right up until one went tits up. Seriously, Korea was an "OH SHIT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GO TO WW3" moment for both of them. I am not sure what the other one is supposed to be.

Torisakia wrote:Pointless wars, treating healthcare like a privilege instead of a right, putting young adults into thousands of dollars in debt in the name of a "good education", it's just culminating to its demise.

The US tried to pull out of Iraq in 2011. ISIS propped up and dominated large swaths of land between Syria and Iraq. This should be the lesson to anyone who wants to pull troops out without considering the political and stability risks to the region.

Healthcare is definitely not treated like a privilege in America. There are dozens of different healthcare programs with different recipients and coverage like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Indian Health Service, Tricare, VA, FEHB, etc. and above all, Obamacare. It is a mishmash clusterfuck of bureaucracy with gaps in-between, but nonetheless, saying healthcare is treated like a privilege in America is grossly incorrect.

And I do not feel sympathy to those students who chose to go to expensive private universities and then bitch about the costs on Twitter. Like mate, community college, scholarships, financial aid, etc. are your best friends, yet you didn't use any of those resources offered to you.

Picairn wrote:The US tried to pull out of Iraq in 2011. ISIS propped up and dominated large swaths of land between Syria and Iraq. This should be the lesson to anyone who wants to pull troops out without considering the political and stability risks to the region.

Instabilities you your self created! The middle east was perfectly stable and calm before western powers started meddling in it. And each subsequent meddling incident only made it worse. Iraq was a perfectly stable and controlled nation before americans raped it because they wanted an oil colony and Syria was equally stable until you started bombing the legitimate government and funding terrorist insurgents. Your entire argument boils down to saying "We messed this place up so bad it needs oversight. So now our colonial troops should just stay forever." which is exactly the argument used by 19th century colonial armies in Africa.

Healthcare is definitely not treated like a privilege in America. There are dozens of different healthcare programs with different recipients and coverage like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Indian Health Service, Tricare, VA, FEHB, etc. and above all, Obamacare. It is a mishmash clusterfuck of bureaucracy with gaps in-between, but nonetheless, saying healthcare is treated like a privilege in America is grossly incorrect.

Unless you live in a civilized nation and are starting at that mess from a position of civilization. In which case it looks not just like a privilege but frankly like something you only get if you win the lottery or something. You have to realize your healthcare "solution" looks absolutely barbaric to the rest of us.

Purpelia wrote:Instabilities you your self created! The middle east was perfectly stable and calm before western powers started meddling in it. And each subsequent meddling incident only made it worse. Iraq was a perfectly stable and controlled nation before americans raped it because they wanted an oil colony and Syria was equally stable until you started bombing the legitimate government and funding terrorist insurgents. Your entire argument boils down to saying "We messed this place up so bad it needs oversight. So now our colonial troops should just stay forever." which is exactly the argument used by 19th century colonial armies in Africa.

The Middle East has been unstable since the Classical Era, when Alexander the Great invaded the Persian Empire. Since then it has always been a hotbed of political and religious extremism. To say the ME was "perfectly stable and calm" before Western intervention is completely false and erroneous. Saddam Hussein after his decisive defeat in 1991 has descended into paranoia and further went down the road of violent suppression of human rights. So was Assad in terms of oppression, who gassed his own citizens. And the US was not in Iraq for oil. Riddle me this: Why would oil companies invest in a chaotic, unstable post-war country with huge risks of anarchy, sectarian forces, and especially the refusal of the Iraqi people? If finding oil is the primary objective, a deal would have been better than a war, no?

Unless you live in a civilized nation and are starting at that mess from a position of civilization. In which case it looks not just like a privilege but frankly like something you only get if you win the lottery or something. You have to realize your healthcare "solution" looks absolutely barbaric to the rest of us.

Except that more than 90% of Americans have health insurance pre-pandemic, thanks to Obamacare and Medicare expansion. It's not a lottery contest to get insurance or whatever BS reasons people can cook up. And since when did Europeans have a monopoly on dictating what is a "civilization"?

Purpelia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Just because there hasn't been a war between large, industrialized countries since the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't mean there haven't been large conflicts since then. Hell, the two largest conflicts since the end of WWII were both fought during the era of so-called hegemonic stability.

And than both of the great powers realized just how dangerous it is to do so and they stopped fighting serious wars for the next eternity. Right up until one went tits up. Seriously, Korea was an "OH SHIT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GO TO WW3" moment for both of them. I am not sure what the other one is supposed to be.

Second Congo War.