There have been inter-state conflicts such as the Korean War, Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War since 1945 as well as many intra-state, civil war type situations.  Yet, despite the tragedy of these conflicts and the suffering they brought, none came close to the cataclysms of the first half of the Twentieth Century. Given the destructive capacity of contemporary weapons, what can we attribute to the fact that the mid-century level of carnage has not been surpassed.

Some may argue that the horror of those wars finally awakened mankind to its ethical responsibilities and that the supremacy of the rule of law and the enthroning of human rights throughout human institutions is the key to an end to these conflagrations.  Others may argue that the advent of the nuclear age frightened the major powers into a tenuous and always fearful, but ultimately fruitful balance of power.  Still more believe that interconnected economic development has finally made callous barbarism too expensive for major powers.  Perhaps then some combination of ethical evolution, economic interweaving and primal, existential fear are the conditions underwriting this relative, though far from absolute, stability.

Irrespective of which of these perspectives one may align, there should be a very serious examination of the one constant during this time period.  After all, if almost everything "changes" over time, but the underlining relative stability has remained, then it would stand to reason that whatever has been the constant over that time frame must bear at least partial responsibility for the stability.

American power is the one constant.  While US power has certainly waxed and waned over the past 65 years, few would argue with the assertion that the United States has been the single most powerful nation during this period.  Though it faced stiff competition from its partner in Cold War theatrics, no other nation comes close. 

However, we are entering an uncharted time where new powers are rising and America's star seems to be fading.  It is in this contextual milieu that the recent speech by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, at the United States Navy League's "Sea, Air and Space" Exposition, becomes deeply troubling. While he certainly does not indicate an abandonment of American naval supremacy, one of the keys, along with nuclear weapons, to America's post-World War II military dominance, it is evident that he is willing to allow a relative decline based on the assumption that Great Power conflict is a thing of the past.

This policy, combined with President Obama's almost pollyannaish vision of a nuclear-free world, is a toxic view to maintain at a time of great uncertainty.  It also takes for granted that the relatively peaceful conditions of the present day can be projected into the future. Sadly, this is misguided. A lack of knowledge about the future means one should hedge their bets.  Today's prognostications of what types of threats will emerge and where they will emerge from can look decidedly myopic within a matter of moments, much less years or decades. The U.S. cannot allow itself to become tired of its global responsibilities.

Credibility matters. If the US is perceived as  declining, we really cannot be sure what will happen if others test our resolve. This could pave the way for the destabilization of the regional balances of power.  It is through that door that renewed Great Power conflict could step and shock a world that has forgotten that relative peace is secured through strength.