War, What Is It Good For?
Dale Calkins - November 1, 2005

        War, the ultimate display of human ingenuity, strength an brutality. Since man’s first conflicts in pre-historic caves, the methods of fighting have changed with time but the reasons for conflict remain the same. Land resources and most importantly power headline man’s reasons for war. Something else has also changed over time, man’s attempt to avoid war as a method of resolving disputes. This process is most commonly referred to as democracy, an arguably idealistic and often unsuccessful method of resolving conflicts. Despite its downfalls, diplomacy is the best way to resolve disputes among nations and represents the direction in which our world must head. Not only must mankind realize that war is a despicable act and we must evolve beyond it but also that if we do not accept this and are unable to move on, we will inevitably destroy ourselves entirely.

        War is one of the most destructive and despicable endeavors man can engage in. It takes the lives of millions of individuals and destroys entire civilizations, and for what? More land? More resources> Or is it more Power> Regardless of why people and nations feel the need to go to war, it will always result in death and destruction above anything else. Diplomacy seeks to eliminate the bloodshed from human existence and maintain a peaceful environment for all. Instead of fighting a war with bullets and blood, diplomats battle with pens and ink, working together peacefully to resolve disputes without resulting to war. Most nations realize that war is undesirable, yet they can not seem to accept the fact there is another way of resolving their ideological differences. The main thing diplomacy lacks however is the ability to ensure all sides are treated fairly and are satisfied with the general outcome. Some and often all involved parties must make concessions to achieve peace, but this is still far better than war where only one side achieves their goals, while those who stand against them are decimated. Diplomacy can in fact resolve conflicts far better than warfare, yet many world leaders refuse to accept this.

        In recent history, many wars have been initiated by dictators, individuals who know not the usefulness of diplomacy. Even when diplomacy is forced upon them by other nations, they circumvent negotiations and continue with their own plans. Leaders such as France’s Napoleon Bonaparte, Germany’s Adolph Hitler and more recently, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein care not for the goals of the greater whole as represented in diplomacy, but only for their own personal vendetta. Here many individuals would argue that war is necessary to stop leaders such as these men, though this is not true.

        As seen with Nazi Germany’s aggression in pre-World War II Europe, diplomacy can be a futile exercise and in fact make the situation even more volatile. Germany’s Fuehrer Adolph Hitler planned to conquer Europe for his nation and more importantly for himself. European powers attempted to stop Hitler by engaging in diplomatic negotiations such as the Munich Conference between Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Hitler’s desire to annex the ethnically German Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia was fulfilled by the pre-World War II policy of appeasement promoted by Chamberlain. The Munich Agreement would see Nazi Germany take control of the Sudetenland as long as Hitler agreed not to invade the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain returned from the conference, confident he had achieved a major diplomatic victory:

                My good friends, for the second time in history, a British Prim Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our                     time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep. (Britania, October 29, 2005)

        Europe would soon be awoken from its slumber as Germany disregarded the Munich Agreement and conquered the entire nation of Czechoslovakia. Hitler used diplomatic negotiations to avoid militaristic conflict and build up his forces so he would be able to defend Nazi Germany against retaliation for his future endeavors. The failure of European and other nations to stop Hitler early would lead to arguably the worst armed conflict of all time, one that likely could have been prevented had they attacked Nazi Germany as soon as Hitler began to militarize the nation. From this, one could suggest that war is necessary to prevent further war. Though if nations engage each other in combat to any extent, they will almost certainly experience the same occurrences as in total war. This is why war must be avoided as nearly all war leads to death and destruction. Leaders may not cooperate with diplomatic negotiations and because of this they need to be removed from power. Economic sanctions upon a nation and even a tactical strike or extraction aimed directly at the leader can accomplish the outcome of war, without the violence and destruction commonly associated with it. Without confidence in their leader or the absence of their leader entirely, people seem to lose confidence in their nation to be effective in war. Once the people of a nation abandon the cause of their leader, there is almost no possibility of it being accomplished. Despite these reasons for avoiding war, the main reason lies not within the fighting but in the complexities of human nature.

        Diplomacy represents a clear and precise evolution in human behavior. Man’s primal instincts to conquer his fellow man are clearly quite prevalent in leaders such as Adolph Hitler and more recently Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il. One could ascertain that this contributed to their desires to engage in armed conflict, although it is not to say they are cavemen but that they simply lack the ideological enlightenment of diplomacy and by extension, peace itself. Humanity needs to progress from the atrocities of war and mover forward into a new age of enlightenment and mutual coexistence. While groups will still likely squabble over their differences, they can settle things orderly instead of resulting to barbarous acts of violence. It is quite true that believing in a higher standard of humanity is idealistic, though it is idealism which is realistic. If this is not achieved it is likely that mankind will spiral out of control in to crash and burn in a blazing inferno of death and destruction.

        Humanity’s apparent strive to eradicate themselves from the face of the planet will likely come to fruition if war and violence continue. Even when wars are ended they encourage further bloodshed. When World War I came to an end, Germany felt as though they were treated extremely poorly in the planning of post-war Europe and this was a major if not the most substantial contribution to the outbreak of World War II. This is clear proof that violence only leads to more violence. Each time powerful nations engage in warfare, the technology involved and to the extent to which it is used escalates. World War I saw hand held and long range weapons evolve at an alarming rate and they became extremely powerful. World War II saw the first serious usage of the tank as well as the advent of jet planes, rockets and most importantly the atomic bomb. With each development the casualty rate increased and the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction became more likely. The atomic bomb is the most significant reason for ensuring diplomacy and peace as if nations were to begin a nuclear war like that which the Cold War between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could have been, we would almost certainly destroy the planet. A war such as this may come sooner than we think as nations such as North Korea are developing nuclear weapons and despite their recent agreement with the United States as well as Asian and European nations not to use these weapons(Reuters, November 1, 2005), their true intentions may well be withheld from the global community. Like Nazi Germany’s Adolph Hitler, North Korea’s Kim Jong-il is essentially a dictator and he, like Hitler may be using the newly signed agreement as a rouse to decrease his opposition’s interest in his plans expansion and war. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” (Wikipedia, November 1, 2005) Einstein’s theory of World Wars III and IV is in fact quite accurate as if nuclear weapons are used in battle, we will almost certainly destroy our civilizations if not completely eliminate all life from Earth. This is the definitive reason as to why peace must be achieved through diplomacy as war will only become more advanced until we guarantee our own destruction.

        War can not be permitted to continue and in its place, diplomacy must be used to its utmost extent to ensure the survival of humanity. Diplomacy can be used to prevent war and if mankind is truly the supreme form of life on Earth, then it will. Peace is one more step in the evolution of the human race, ones step that can and must be achieved to prevent our self inflicted annihilation.

<<<Go Back To Features

References:

Albert Einstein quotation. Wikipedia. From the Internet on November 1, 2005
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-War_IV

Kim,Jack. North Korean nuclear situation. Reuters. From the Internet on November 1, 2005.
        http:today.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.spx?type=wolrdNews&storyID=2005-11-02T040117Z_01_ FOR214445_RTRUKOC_0_UK-KOREA-NORTH-TALKS.xml&archived=False

Neville Chamberlain quotation. Britannia: British history. From the Internet on October 29, 2005.
    http://www.historyplace.com/history/docs/peacetime.html