> But there have been no wars between major powers in the last 80 years. Maybe people in power have realized that all-out wars are no longer productive.

People talked like that before WW I. There hasn't been a major war in Europe since 1870 almost half a century and trade is such a large war would bankrupt all the major powers and so would never happen. The Great Illusion was published in 1909 and was positively received at the time:

> In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[4][5] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[6] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[7] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay.

The biggest Thucydides Trap wars were WW1 and WW2, which happened specifically as Britain (the first major power to industrialize) lost its hegemony over industrialization and faced competition from Germany, Russia, Japan, the US, etc. Thirty years of some of the most brutal war the world has ever seen followed, which only ended with the U.S. re-establishing hegemony because it was the only one whose homeland hadn't been bombed into oblivion.

You're right that there have been no great-power wars in the last 80 years. That's about the timescale at which major hegemonic realignments occur: WW1/WW2 from 1914-1945 (England -> US), Napoleonic Wars from 1803-1815 (England -> France -> England), Nine Years War + Glorious Revolution + War of Spanish Succession from 1688-1715 (France -> England), European Wars of Religion from 1618-1648 which created the nation-state system.

But that just means that this is the first major hegemonic realignment after the development of nuclear weapons and drone swarms, which makes me fear for the survival of civilization a bit.

In history 80 years is nothing.

But since the industrial revolution 80 years is something.

I hope it's a trend: but living in Europe right now, I do feel like our strongest ally are giving our enemies reason doubt the deterrence we've collectively built over the past 77 years.

We had to deploy armed troops to Greenland to deter an ally from invasion.

The deterrence to war we've spilled blood building for 77 years.

Economics is part of why we haven't had wars, collective deterrence probably had something to do with it too. Without NATO who is to say how many smaller nations Russia/USSR would have invaded for the fun of it.

Hopefully not. We've lived that movie already with currencies tied to gold. It significantly slowed down past WW1 reconstruction, and is in general makes it very hard to adjust the money supply to enable economic recovery.

The ideal would be something like the International clearing currency proposed by Keynes durin Bretton Woods (he was overruled in favor of the dollar as reserve currency since America had all the power at the time).

Here's an Op Ed from Greece's past finance minister in favor of this scheme: https://www.weforum.org/stories/economic-growth/yanis-varouf...

China probably has the fiscal firepower to replace Eurodollars, but while their financial system remains split between "internally used currency" and "currency for everyone else" and while external investment is treated with deep suspicion and harsh rules, it would be limited to liquidity and exchange purposes. Nobody wants to hold a currency like the yuan over an appreciable period of time. That might be enough; that confers a lot of power and influence to the currency issuer. But definitely different ground than US Treasuries cover.

Historically this is also where we'd insert something into the conversation about who gets to hold the moral high ground, but as you've noted, that's something the current US administration has abandoned entirely.

No, China's economy is not setup to be a reserve currency. To be a reserve currency other countries need to have a stockpile of it to trade with 3rd party countries.

The only way for other countries to have the RMB is either China has to start issues massive amounts of bonds (doubt they'll be okay with foreign government owning their debts) or they stop being an export driven economy (this is because all the money goes back to China, and RMB is unable to actually leave the country if you're in a trade deficit with China) . Neither of which seems likely.

You are confusing being the world's biggest net exporter with being the world's biggest net importer.

But they are the opposites of each other.

So it's fair to say that China is the exact opposite of what it would take issue a reserve currency.

Let China spend a few decades running net trade deficits, let it open its capital market so the CNY fully floats, and allow unfettered foreign capital inflows and outflows for a few decades.

Then we can have a discussion about how it can be a dominant reserve currency.

It will not be China as it doesn't have a floating currency. That is one of the prerequisites for becoming a reserve currency, that and removing capital controls.

Finally there has to be a certain willingness from other countries to accept this new currency and I just don't see the EU countries conducting all their international trade in yuan anytime soon.

Finally replacing the USD is just one part. The second part is how to stop the next currency from being weaponized just like the USD is/was. Without the answer to that question, then switching to a new reserve currency is just replacing one problem with another.