Post-Bretton Wood global instability / loss of Mutually-Assured Destruction
around here https://overcast.fm/+VteHhPR9U/10:28
Pre WW2, there were no weapons that could destroy the entire planet. Countries warred to settle problems. Solidiers (sometimes many) and sometimes civilians were killed, but the damage mostly ended there.
After WW2, it became possible for conflicts to escalate into species-ending weapon usage. this was an unsustainable situation.
Post-Bretton Woods world was made relatively safe again by the placement of Mutually-Assured Destruction. Large powers now no-longer could go to war directly, as it would inevitably escalate into a MAD situation. This brings about a period of relative peace and less direct conflict (proxy wars, trade wars, etc.). Along with MAD, the large powers also became deeply dependent on a globalized network of supply and trade such that the game theory insured everyone more or less got along.
This relative safety only works when the planet-ending weapons are hard to make and only possessed by a few powers. Now nukes are more widely-spread (though still hard to make) and importantly there are other civilization-ending weapons that are cheaper and widely-spread: autonomous drones, chemical weapons, bio-weapons (more and more), AI weapons (more and more), infrastructure-threatening cyber attacks, supply chain disruptions (a-al COVID-19), and so on.
MAD only works as a protective structure when there are few actors directly engaged in a relatively-balanced (tech and destructive-power) conflict. When the conflicts are more asymmetrical or when there are many actors, the protection of MAD falls apart.
We don’t yet know what will replace the post-bretton-woods world protective structures. We’re seeing the effects of this free-fall today (examples needed).