Nukes only effective deterrence has been deterring otherwise smart people from pursuing practical careers and instead going into the rarified field of policy wonking and military tactitioning for think tanks and the like. They've no other deterrence, war still occurs, constantly, since WWII.

"China as military aggressor" is another wonk wet dream: only possibility in next 80 years is they play the same proxy war antics as US, UK and Russia in last 60.

Russia war is more interesting: forget the headlining, what's the deal? The war that "nobody said they wanted" yet are doing their best to maintain: sympathetic media for Ukraine--cover for making endless war palatable: "Isn't it terrible, poor Ukraine. Evil Russia" great cover if you want to inure people; all the sycophanting to Zelensky--cover for repulsion toward him. Question is why? Was Ukraine some threat to Europe, and Putin merely the short-straw-drawing messenger for European consensus? What if Putin didn't want this war but was handed this job with "no choice"? Question is why? That's an interesting question. I don't believe the "war profiteers" take...I think there has to be something else.

(I have a theory that when a military, any military, becomes too large, "the system" acts to rebalance the inevitable threat to itself (from that military) by creating a war to "cull the herd" (terrible) of the soldiers who could otherwise be put to some status-quo threatening use. But I think that doesn't go the whole way. I wonder what the real reason for that war is. Ignore all the bluster about Russian manifest destiny mythology (neatly tied up in that "religiosity" speech by Putin)--more cover. But for what? I don't know. I just think it's obvious it's not what it seems.)