The elements that create and win war are well defined, but stating that Peace is simply the absence of conflict is a poor definition and disregards the notion that strategies and methods can be conceived in order to wage peace. This is not to say that there are not complex definitions of Peace, but they are for the most part found in academia, not generally in society. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the notion that peace is an ethereal concept and not one that can be achieved. But consider the research, planning and practice that goes into conducting war; it is a multi-trillion dollar industry. There are private and public businesses, government research institutions, universities, academies, and think tanks all dedicated to the administration of war.
Given the investment in defense the question should be asked, does the business of war make peace more likely or that war will eventually be fought? As long as there are trillions of dollars at stake, it isn't a stretch to believe that there will always be someone stridently proclaiming the necessity for the next best weapon.
At the very least, the business of war needs competition from the business of Peace. In order to provide this competition, Peace needs to be supported by research, planning and practice - not as a cottage industry but as an industry with the same economic potential as the business of war.
Is this notion fanciful? Probably, like splitting the atom.
Comments