I suggest changing the minimum recruitment age to 45, since I find that the biblical paradigm of "the sacrifice of Isaac", the sacrifice of our young, has been dominating our collective imagination for far too long. Sending the young to battle became another form of entertainment, a sports event, evidenced e.g. on how easy was beating the drums of war on the recent Iran debacle.
Mature adults in charge of the decision making to war, should be ready to bear the consequences on their skin, and the costs associated with leaving a carrier and household on hold.
Put a lid on the power of corporations/people and you'll stop the wars.
Behind every war is a business case that benefit a few; typically at the expense of the larger society.
In the case of the recent Iraq war, think those whose bonuses or investments would benefit from the 2 trillion dollar cost of the war. Who pays the 2 trillion? You and me! They don't care about the killed, wounded and the log term impact on our society either.
Conflict is human, but the kind of globe-engrossing wars we saw in the last century and hopefully a thing of the past.
The more technology, the more immediacy of war news. But the more technology, the lower the number of casualties of war over time in world conflicts. When all areas have more news saturation and immediacy, it will be harder for them to wage war as people will expect more from their governments and feel that their protests will be taken more seriously. Keep reporting!!!
(answer--ultimately peace is inevitable)
No, War is not inevitable. But we must address multiple means for stopping it. And these are many. Just one is to analyze our language. The 'War on Cancer', for example, implies that war has a good outcome and if you die of cancer, you lost the battle. The practice of competition which we encounter from our earliest schooldays easily slide into 'battle/war' language-and into 'battle/war' behavior.
Years ago when I was designing a peace education program, I met a diplomat from Botswana who said that his country has a comprehensive peace education program that works. More recently, I asked another Botswanian if the program was still effective. She said yes but was being put under strain by the discovery of diamonds.
Costa Rica, which had abolished its army, and Botswana remained at peace while their neighbors in Central America and Africa fought to exhaustion and economic destitution.
I still love the poster from the 60's that said "What if We Had a War an Nobody Came."
War is not inevitable. We are a pacifist family. From the time our children were young, we have taught them to look for non-violent solutions to problems and conflicts. Now, they are grown men spreading this thinking in the world.
People often point to Hitler and say that his actions made war necessary. This is very limited thinking. We could have employed other solutions. If Hitler emerged today, what would we do? We would initiate economic sanctions, create total isolation, cut off natural resources like oil and minerals.
Even a madman like Hitler could be stopped without resorting to war.
No, but humans are not yet willing to do what it takes to end war, i.e. educate all, end poverty, become sustainable, etc.
Who are these people who say that war is "inevitable" because Chimps do it?
Chimps also eat bananas and bananas aren't inevitable!
War is clearly NOT inevitable, as Paul Chappell explains in his three books. Wars benefit the few at the expense of the many; wars can be avoided by mutual understanding and a willingness to address each others' needs; wars reflect a win-lose mindset, whereas the obvious intedependence of modern life demonstrates that there is no US/THEM; we're all in it together, so we need a win/win approach. Moreover, modern wars always end with negotiated settlements. If we don't have an us vs. them mentality, we can skip the bloodshed and begin with negotiation. Since the majority of people don't benefit from war, we can become the force that advocates negotiation and rejects war.
Speaking of gender and war -- It's testosterone! Plain and simple. It's not the way men are raised as the caller said. And look at how men rape during war, totally opposite to how women (largely the innocent victims) are.
I'm wondering if your guest is familiar with the work of Marshall Rosenburg and his Non-Viloent Communication framework of dealing with violence and aggression on an interpersonal and societal level?
Mr Rosenburg has created a method of communication that is based on awareness of needs and is used by therapists and diplomats around the world to negotiate conflicts.
Is this the type of thing that you're considering when you talk about a societal change regarding war?
In the long run, war is inevitable. But strangely, at any given moment, for any group of people at any specific point in history, war is perfectly avoidable.
I believe that until the human race stops wanting what the neighbors have (be it land, money, religion) there will be conflict. Not necessarily violence but confrontation. However, without the humanurge for what others have or even what we fantisize others have, progress would lessen.
I believe we have to continualy strive in order to move forward and sometimes thinking others have more than we do, causes that progress.
Fr. Robert Herrell
No, war is not inevitable. Peace is, though. We can know peace soon if that becomes our focus as a country and world. It can be done. Or, if we wait, there will be the peace of a dead planet moving around a star, like Venus or Mars. The choice is ours. Do we put away our swords, or do we teach strength and justice with a drone and a bomb? Some times I weep and I pray.
I believe that war is not inevitable. I have always thought war to be ludicrous and it appalling that the majority have been conditioned to believe that war is necessary and servicing it is noble. Looking at it from the potential of human evolution, through a separation from our individual egos we can reach a different level of consciousness. It is difficult to know if we will make it as a human race ultimately, but we are seeing signs of a greater awareness. Perhaps over a long time we will be able to discover that which we are ultimately meant to as humans, I believe, which is an inner peace which is available to anyone in sickness and in health, in poverty and wealth. A love and a joy for the mystery of the world, for something bigger than even who we are collectively...a trust that everything is ok as it is and is as it should be and that we do not have to take control. It is such a great challenge for us today because we are not yet there, but we are showing each other the way. We just need to take each day and decide to choose kindness to witness the power of love instead of hate. Take a small step and try to be calm in the face of conflict and you will discover the power to diffuse it. It is truly amazing.
Since war is very costly, the powerful often use other means in impose their will but the nevertheless the result are the same: death (no health-care), destruction (global warming), economic sanctions (500k+ Iraqi children deaths) etc. If we expand the definition of war to include these options the powerful employ, war is not only inevitable, it is ubiquitous!
RE: Discussion on women in peace-building roles with Michelle Bachelet . The fact that the vast majority of women lack access to education and are not free to vote etc, is the major issue. Poor health care, poor education, constant risk of violence prevents women from being in a position where they can contribute to peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping. No one can say whether women would be more effective in peace-building, conflict resolution roles because of how few women have been granted access to these processes. Until we have equal representation on a global scale, where women have equal quality of living as men, we can't really start the discussion of how women in power would react, respond and act in conflict resolution. Personally, I think it's counter-productive to try and prove women would be better at such roles because it opens up a "are women-better-than-men" debate. What needs to be said is, can women, without gender-profiling, have equitable representation and be part of the processes that affect them.
No, because there won't be any war once the human race is extinct. If we limit the range to the existence of the human race, then the answer is yes.
I was listening to the show earlier today and there was discussion that women in more powerful positions would reduce war, but this is exposed as incorrect when you study the female leaders of the past. Gandhi, Meir, Thatcher, Merkel, and Gillard have all been involved in wars during their terms.
Whether its religion, territory, natural resources, culture, or just eccentric rulers, war will always be inevitable. There might be an extended period of peace if one day we form a joint world economic system, but ultimately there will be a shortage of food, water, natural resources, or simple hatred that will beget more war.