(http://www.informationwar.org/wars%20gallery/present.htm)
"Is war avoidable?"
This question has inevitably come up in every politicians mind at one time or another. When looking at how to answer the question, one has to start at the root of the cause to find an answer. Humans as a species have continually resorted to war as a means of conflict resolution. Looking at past trends and different cultures, warfare as a means of conflict resolution is a reacurring pattern of human culture. By going back to ancient times, before the establishment of States or any formal colonies, evidence of armed conflict has been found.
Does that mean that humans will always resort to war? Is it part of actual human culture, or possibly part of each individual, to be driven towards violence when met with a problem? What is the drive of violence in humans, is it instinctual and therefore relatively inevitable, or is it again the result of the structure of a society and its motivations for growth?
If war was believed to be a result of the structure of human society, than it could be the aim of society, in order to stop the cycle of war, to attempt to restructure the global economy by focusing on the roots of conflict between nations.
Could it be possible for humans as a race to strive towards a world without war, which would inevitably call for major sacrifices on both the personal and the national level? This issue has been explored in depth, with a wide array of factors playing subtle and major roles in the picture. Questions have been raised, "Is it realistic to work towards developing an economy which eliminates or minimalizes the source of conflict between societies?" Most nations do not seem to display any such desire to commit to a global goal of supranationalism, since it would essentially contradict the established goals and policies for growth.
It is believed that as long as we continue to live in a global economy, war will be unavoidable, because a global economy is based upon industrialization and trade as a means to remain competitive. The theory of globalilzation has been thought to be unrealistic with its goal, which is to eventually live universally under one government with a balance of trade leading to wealth. The end result would be the elimination of major conflicts arising between States. Many feel that the goal of unification is actually the cause of more disruption in the global economy, along with a widening in the economic gaps between economies.On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who feel that humans are steadily making progress as a species, and that conflict and wars are working to unify the countries in the long run. So while conflict may be part of the process now, the global powers are actually moving towards a unified economy. The support comes from successful treaties and partnerships that have been formed as a result of a conflict between nations or States.
Some theorists relate human warfare (with the distinction being made between warfare- implying the involvement of an entire group of people against another group of people- and the daily conflict occurring on a personal level between one or more individuals), to the production of agriculture and ownership of land. The argument being that once humans started assigning a certain value of wealth with a given amount of "property", war became an inevitable product of the change. Essentially, the assumption is made that the fear and greed that accompanied the ownership of a concrete object, accompanied by the possibility of the loss of that object, is a learned reaction from which warfare originated.
For more information on concepts related to the idea of warfare in society:
The idea of Globalization: Theory of the Global State
War as a part of human nature: Human
Nature and War