First, total warfare like WW2, in the sense that the majority of the global economy is directed towards people conquering each other, will not happen again. Nuclear deterrence works. Though I and I'm sure many others find this repulsive, it is reality. That means, realistically future armed conflicts are going to be regional border disputes fought with conventional weapons, increasingly delivered via drones.
It is clearly not the case that the NSA, in it's current form, is the lynchpin keeping global warfare at bay. There are strong arguments that it is in fact adding fuel to the ongoing smoldering economic and diplomatic conflicts. There clearly is a whole range of possible forms for the NSA between "no security" and "total global surveillance."
You also act like human conflicts are exogenous, that they just happen to us like natural disasters. Behind this is the idea that there will always be some other force or enemy that is beyond reason, engagement and diplomacy. That is a particularly ugly and simpleminded view.
It is clearly not the case that the NSA, in it's current form, is the lynchpin keeping global warfare at bay. There are strong arguments that it is in fact adding fuel to the ongoing smoldering economic and diplomatic conflicts. There clearly is a whole range of possible forms for the NSA between "no security" and "total global surveillance."
You also act like human conflicts are exogenous, that they just happen to us like natural disasters. Behind this is the idea that there will always be some other force or enemy that is beyond reason, engagement and diplomacy. That is a particularly ugly and simpleminded view.