What Is the Future of War?
“OVER the course of 4000 years of experiment and repetition, warmaking has become a habit,” observed military historian John Keegan. Will the habit be broken? Countless lives have been sacrificed in combat. Extraordinary energy and immense resources have fueled the making of war. For millenniums, brilliant minds have been committed to finding new and better ways to kill and destroy. Do humans demonstrate the same enthusiasm for the promoting of peace? Hardly! Yet, many cautiously reason that there is some basis for optimism.
The Perception That War Is Folly
That optimism is grounded on the belief that civilized people no longer view war as they once did. In the 13th century, Mongol warrior Genghis Khan reportedly said: “Happiness lies in conquering one’s enemies, in driving them in front of oneself, in taking their property, in savoring their despair, in outraging their wives and daughters.”
One can hardly imagine a world leader making a similar statement today! The book A History of Warfare states: “It is scarcely possible anywhere in the world today to raise a body of reasoned support for the opinion that war is a justifiable activity.” War is no longer widely viewed as natural, instinctive, glorious, or noble. The carnage of 20th-century wars has left humanity with a sense of dread and loathing over what war does. One source reasoned that this antipathy toward violence has led to the abolishment of capital punishment in many countries and has fostered a sympathy toward those who refuse to take part in military activities.
Repugnance to the slaughter is not the only factor that has changed attitudes. There is also the important matter of self-preservation. So great is the destructive power of modern weapons, both nuclear and conventional, that any war between the major powers of today would bring the risk of mutual obliteration. To initiate a large-scale war is mad, suicidal. It is this conviction, argue many, that has prevented nuclear war for over 50 years.
There is another reason why some people think differently about the future. Large-scale war is perceived as folly not only because everything can be lost but also because so little can be won. The economic argument against the likelihood of major war is this: The rich and powerful nations of the world benefit immensely through economic cooperation. The material advantages these nations enjoy during peace cannot be matched by any that war might bring. Thus, there is good reason for the strong nations to maintain peace with one another. What is more, it is in their interests to join forces to curb any conflicts between lesser powers that threaten the economic status quo.
Global Efforts to Bring Peace
The desire to end war is expressed in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations. There we read of the determination of the member states “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime [with the two world wars] has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” That determination to save future generations from war was expressed in the notion of collective security—the idea that nations should unite against any state defined as an aggressor. Thus, if any nation wanted to start a war, it would face the wrath of the international community.
Though the idea is simple and logical in theory, applying it has been another matter. The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Although collective security, in somewhat different forms, played a prominent part in the League of Nations Covenant and is embodied in the United Nations Charter, it has completely failed in both cases. Failing an international government capable of ultimately determining the issues, nations have not managed to agree on an unequivocal definition of aggression, have not in practice accepted the principle that aggression must be acted against independently of the identity of the perpetrator, and, therefore, have not established the international collective security force envisaged in the Charter.”
Nevertheless, the idea of creating a supranational body to promote peace was something new in human affairs. To many who yearn for peace, the UN peacekeeper, in blue beret, remains a symbol of hope. They share the sentiments of the journalist who applauded “the concept of the soldier of peace, who is sent to an area of conflict, not to wage war, but to promote peace, not to fight enemies, but to help friends.”
For decades the Cold War divided the UN into two power blocs, each inclined to thwart whatever the other wished to do. Though the end of the Cold War has not eradicated conflict, distrust, and suspicion between nations, many believe that the political landscape now offers unprecedented opportunities for the UN to act as it was intended to.
Other developments of the 20th century also give hope to those who yearn for peace. For example, the goal of international diplomacy is to resolve conflict peacefully. Humanitarian aid helps nations to rehabilitate other nations and helps peoples torn by war. Peacemaking and humanitarianism have both become components of foreign policy. Those who promote peace are honored.
The Face of Future War
Any feelings of optimism, however, must be balanced with some grim realities. When the Cold War ended in 1989, many expressed confidence in a peaceful world order. Still, war continued. During the next seven years, an estimated 101 conflicts raged in various places. Most were wars not between states but within states. They were fought by opposing groups with unsophisticated weapons. In Rwanda, for example, much of the killing was done with machetes.
Often, the modern battlefields are towns and villages, and there is little or no distinction between combatants and civilians. Michael Harbottle, director of the Centre for International Peacebuilding, wrote: “Whereas in the past the causes of conflict may have been fairly predictable, today they are much more complex and much more difficult to control. The degree of violence which accompanies them is unbelievable and totally irrational. Civilian inhabitants are as much in the firing line as the fighters.” Such low-tech conflict shows little sign of fading away.
Meanwhile, in the rich nations of the earth, high-tech weapon development continues apace. Sensors—whether deployed in the air, in space, in the ocean, or on the ground—enable a modern army to see more quickly and clearly than ever before, even in difficult terrain, such as jungles. Once sensors spot a target, missiles, torpedoes, or laser-guided bombs can hit it—often with amazing accuracy. As the new technologies are perfected and integrated, “distance warfare” moves toward reality, enabling an army to see everything, hit everything, and destroy much that an enemy has.
In considering the prospect of future war, we should not forget the menacing presence of nuclear weapons. The Futurist magazine predicts: “The continuing proliferation of atomic weapons makes it increasingly likely that we shall have one or more atomic wars during the next 30 years. In addition, atomic weapons may be used by terrorists.”
What Is the Problem?
What has frustrated efforts to achieve global peace? An obvious factor is that the human family is disunited. Humanity is fragmented into nations and cultures that distrust, hate, or fear one another. There are conflicting values, perceptions, and goals. Furthermore, use of military power has for millenniums been seen as a legitimate way to pursue national interests. After acknowledging this situation, a report from the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College stated: “To many, this implied that peace would only come with world government.”
Some have felt that the United Nations might be that government. But the UN was never intended to be a world government with power beyond that of its member nations. It is only as strong as its member nations allow it to be. Suspicion and disagreement continue between those nations, and the power they grant to the UN is limited. Therefore, instead of shaping the international system, the UN remains more a reflection of it.
Nevertheless, global peace will certainly come to the earth. The next article shows how that will happen.
[Blurb on page 5]
“MANKIND MUST PUT AN END TO WAR, OR WAR WILL PUT AN END TO MANKIND.”—JOHN F. KENNEDY
[Picture on page 7]
The UN has not become a world government
[Credit Line]
UN photo