Can War Ever Be Abolished?
Muhammad Arsalan
Islamabad: War has remained a permanent feature of human civilization and continues to be one of the most debated issues in international politics. Despite the development of international institutions, diplomacy, and international law, the complete elimination of war still appears impossible.
The nature, methods, and intensity of warfare may evolve over time, but conflict itself persists. This persistence is rooted in the anarchic structure of the international system, the struggle for power, competing national interests, and, ultimately, aspects of human nature itself.
War can be understood as a violent conflict between organized groups, usually states, aimed at imposing one political will upon another. Diversity among human societies naturally produces conflicting interests, making conflict unavoidable. States, much like individuals, prioritize survival, security, and power. When these interests clash, the possibility of war emerges.
Realist thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and Thomas Hobbes argued that conflict is an inevitable outcome of international politics because there is no central authority above states capable of enforcing order universally. In this anarchic environment, states are forced to rely on self-help for survival, making war a recurring feature rather than an exceptional event.
History strongly supports this argument. Although the character of warfare has transformed dramatically, from primitive battles fought with swords and bows to modern conflicts involving drones, cyber warfare, and missiles, war itself has never disappeared.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistan-bridges-us-iran/
Historians estimate that thousands of violent conflicts have occurred since 3500 BCE. This continuity demonstrates that war adapts to political and technological changes rather than becoming extinct.
One of the most significant developments in reducing large-scale wars has been nuclear deterrence. The invention of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the cost-benefit calculation of war.
According to deterrence theory, direct conflict between nuclear powers becomes unlikely because both sides possess the ability to destroy one another completely — a concept known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
The Cold War provides the clearest example of this reality. Despite intense ideological rivalry, military competition, and global hostility, the United States and the Soviet Union avoided direct war. The fear of catastrophic destruction acted as a restraint on both sides.
Studies by institutions such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute have frequently highlighted the role nuclear deterrence has played in preventing full-scale war between major powers since 1945.
A similar pattern can be observed in South Asia. Since becoming nuclear powers in 1998, India and Pakistan have experienced several crises and limited confrontations, yet both have avoided full-scale war. The devastating consequences associated with nuclear conflict have imposed caution on political leadership, demonstrating how deterrence can reduce the likelihood of major wars.
Economic interdependence also contributes to limiting conflict. Liberal theorists argue that states deeply connected through trade and investment are less likely to engage in war because armed conflict would severely damage their economies.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistan-a-peace-broker/
The relationship between the United States and China illustrates this dynamic. Despite geopolitical tensions and political disagreements, both countries remain economically intertwined. China is one of America’s largest trading partners, while the United States remains a crucial market for Chinese exports. Such financial interdependence significantly raises the cost of war and encourages restraint.
Diplomacy further reduces the risk of conflict. Political scientist Michael Doyle, drawing upon the ideas of Immanuel Kant, argued that democratic and diplomatically engaged states are less likely to fight one another.
Diplomatic communication, crisis-management mechanisms, and continuous dialogue help prevent misunderstandings from escalating into armed confrontation. Even during periods of tension, diplomatic engagement provides an important balancing force.
International laws and organizations also play a role in constraining warfare, although their effectiveness often remains limited. Institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice promote peaceful dispute resolution, but their influence is frequently restricted by global power politics.
International law is often applied selectively, especially when powerful states are involved.
The ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict reflects this imbalance. Despite humanitarian concerns and widespread international criticism, political realities continue to hinder effective enforcement of international law. This reinforces the realist argument that laws without sufficient power backing remain limited in practice.
Nevertheless, while war has not disappeared, its destructive impact has declined in several respects. Battle-related deaths have decreased significantly since the end of the Cold War, and large interstate wars have become less common.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/oil-war-and-diplomacy/
Although intrastate conflicts, proxy wars, and hybrid warfare continue to exist, these trends suggest that humanity can reduce the intensity of conflict even if it cannot eliminate it entirely.
The complete abolition of war remains unlikely because the roots of conflict are deeply embedded in both human nature and the structure of global politics. Yet humanity has still made important progress.
Nuclear deterrence, diplomacy, economic interdependence, and international institutions have all contributed to limiting the scale and devastation of warfare.
Perhaps the true achievement of civilization is not the total elimination of conflict, but the ability to manage it, contain it, and reduce its destructive consequences. In the modern world, reducing war, rather than imagining its complete disappearance — may be the most realistic and achievable goal.
