Not really.
Not for the middle east anyway.
Although I see your point about having nuclear weapons resulting in less wars. The USA and USSR never actually got in a direct war.
OTOH, if just one reckless leader decides to use nukes, just for once, it will probably start an endless nuclear war.
It's a double edged sword.
Wonder what would happen if every country in the middle east had them, or say, major countries (Turkey, and some Arab country).
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ...
An interesting look at "Belgium should not be a country" meaning, pre-1950's, Belgium would be snapped up by an expanding imperialistic country.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Lists of Democracies going to war..though I would differentiate this between "capitalistic" countries and war.
Points and counter-points: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikk...
Economic expansion built upon cheap resources for the industries of large powers and obedient world markets. I.e in war, coups, protectorates, old-style and new-style colonization.
And, when everything else fails, war between major powers themselves.
The same fallacies ("economic expansion will replace war") were uttered in late 19th century, we saw how that turned out. Btw, the market was no less global then.
Not by a wide margin. The US for example is at war every single year of its existence. Now, it might be peaceful in Chicago or Pensacola, but the same was true for those living in Rome when the romans wages wars worldwide.