Defining and rewarding peace

How do we define 'peace' in such a way it could be meaningfully targeted by such applications of the Social Policy Bond concept as World Peace Bonds or Middle East Peace Bonds? 

It seems difficult at first. Peace, in the sense of absence of open conflict reigns, by definition, in the years before wars break out. But the opening sentence of Liddell Hart's History of the First World War gives a clue:

Fifty years were spent in the process of making Europe explosive. Five
days were enough to detonate it.

A World Peace Bond regime would be targeting long-term peace. Bondholders therefore would be rewarded when they reduce the probability of conflict before it becomes lethal. As with most Social Policy Bond applications, our overall goal will be a set of subordinate goals, each of which has to be satisfied before the bonds will be redeemed. So, one such sub-goal could be to ensure that the 'number of people killed within 24 hours of an act of violence' falls below 5000 for a period of several decades. But this condition would have to be satisfied at the same time as others, such as the lethality of weaponry held by actors. 

With a goal for peace that must be sustained over fifty or more years, metrics that target for elimination the use of deadly violence become more closely aligned with what we actually want to achieve. With such a decades-long outlook, bondholders would have incentives not merely to prevent the outbreak of violence, but also to prevent the precursors to violence. For example: the Cold War ended peacefully, but if World Peace Bonds issued in the year 1950 had targeted a period of sustained peace of just ten years then bondholders would have profited, despite the accumulation of ever more horrific atomic and nuclear weapons, during the period that preceded the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. If the same bonds had been issued with a target of fifty years of sustained peace, then bondholders would have been motivated to reduce tensions, including by such means as reducing the weapons pile-up, or fostering better relations between the US and USSR. A ten-year goal would see the original bondholders making profits while the prospects for peace looked ever darker. A fifty-year goal would have seen the value of their holdings collapse before and during the Crisis.

The point is that rewarding peace sustained for a decades-long period encourages longer-term thinking. By choosing to target a decades-long period of sustained peace, we should do much to eliminate the much less quantifiable - but hugely important - precursors of violence.

Even more appealing as a target would be nuclear peace. A goal such as 'fewer than 500 people killed by a nuclear device within one month of its detonation over a period of fifty years' would be even simpler to define robustly, and could be a top priority for organisations, or philanthropists perhaps, who wish to ensure nuclear peace, but have no means or wish to get involved in achieving it.