Wars cannot be abolished as every human being on this earth has its perspective, as we can say that humans have different ideologies, and every human sees the world through their lens, eventually giving rise to a difference of opinion which leads to wars. Differences of opinion can be mitigated when the interests of two individuals, entities, organizations, or even states converge and intertwine.

We have the famous example of China and Pakistan, being poles apart from each other, having nothing in common except for their respective self-interest which is forcing them to have peaceful good relations with each other. As Pakistan and China have different religions, different languages, and different ethnicities, on they whole entirely different however their interests converge over states’ interests leading them to have no wars as Pakistan and China are in a collaboration of CPEC (Pak-China economic corridor) which will give China an access to strengthen its security and do free trade.

Realists argue that war is a permanent feature of human nature and the anarchic international system.

Whereas Pakistan would be economically strengthened because of this project. On the other hand, Afghanistan, which has so much in commonality with Pakistan that it is called the cousin of Pakistan, bears extreme grudges against Pakistan and is always ready for escalation. But this was an explanation of wars not happening between states due to common mutual interests, however, the moment these interests change, wars can start.

It is said that the chances of war are like rain, it can happen anytime, further strengthening the argument that wars can never be abolished. In contemporary times war has taken many different faces but the nature of war never changes. From traditional means of warfare to non-traditional means such as cyber-warfare, and hybrid warfare, proxy wars have emerged to fight the enemy.

Through these new types of warfare, we can easily see that wars can never be finished, and even new types of warfare are coming in to get more benefits. Stuxnet (a computer virus) made by the collaboration of (US-Israel) was made to target the nuclear facilities in Iran and the virus did bring destruction and disruption to Iran’s nuclear program causing damage in the shape of precious time lost.

It was the first time that the world saw a cyber-attack on one country by another by not directly confronting each other through military means. It broadens the definition and scope of warfare as any type of war may bring terror, and violence into the big canvas of the world, but after every war, peace does prevail for a longer period of time. It is a universal truth that after every dark cloud, we can see a silver lining.

Cyber-warfare, like the Stuxnet attack, has expanded the scope of modern conflict beyond traditional battlefields.

Realists argue that wars are necessary to protect national interests and also that after every war, peace prevails, as a balance of powers theory comes into power play and no hegemon would be there to control them or harm their sovereignty. Realists state that as the state is supreme and no one is above the state, wars can occur to protect if the state is in danger.

Below are the statements of realists that describe their viewpoint that wars occur due to different underlying conditions, whether driven by human nature, the structure of international relations, etc, but war is seen as a feature of international politics that can never be abolished.

Hans Morgenthau, a classical realist, stated that “The power struggle is a permanent and inevitable feature of human nature”.As a realist he believed that the international system is anarchic due to lack of central authority, making war a constant threat. Furthermore, he also stated that “War is a consequence of the persistent desire for power inherent in human nature.

Kenneth Waltz, a neo-realist stated that “The international system is anarchic and in an anarchic system, each state must look to its own survival, and that means maintaining the capacity to defend itself , potentially through wars, as war under anarchy is a natural condition of international relations it may be minimized, but it cannot be abolished”.

If we talk about religions, we have the example of the Islamic religion which does have sayings such as War disrupts the natural order of life, as peace is the order of life by default, and war challenges that. However, we do have sufficient backing of evidence to explain that even though the Islamic religion like all other religions in the world promotes peace, however, wars have been fought in Islam as well, whether to protect the Muslims from enemies or to protect God’s religion. I believe that weapon is not an instrument of war, but war is an instrument of peace.

International institutions like the UN have failed to prevent conflicts such as the ongoing war in Palestine.

Wars can never be abolished, as a human has a nature in which conflict ensues since birth therefore, conflict may lead to wars ideally rather than peace. An Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud suggests that humans have an instinctual drive towards aggression and destruction which is expressed through wars . This psychological basis for conflict cannot be eliminated. Which also serves as a backbone of evidence for our opinion that wars cannot be abolished. It is a noble pursuit for humans to diminish the concept of war however humans cannot do that.

We can also see from the history of humans indulging in warfare that even methods to prevent war such as international peacekeeping bodies or the methods of diplomacy, and negotiation are insufficient to stop a war from happening. They have failed in some way whether it be the formation of the League of Nations (LON) which also disintegrated as it could not stop WWII from happening which was the cause for which it was made or the United Nations which is made but it still hasn’t been able to stop or mediate any terms n conditions to put an end to the ongoing war in Palestine.

It is known that the international system is anarchic and there is no central authority to control. However, these bodies (UN) are made with the viewpoint to mediate or provide solutions or guidelines for the peace and health of individuals. But it also is unable to provide adequate solutions to some of the problems of the contemporary times.

“Wars are the continuation of policies” is a famous definition of war said by Clausewitz, a Prussian officer who wrote his book (ON War) detailing the study of warfare. This definition describes that wars are not an isolated entity rather they are tied to the strings of politics and agendas for the goals of the state and by this we can also see that wars cannot be abolished as it is a continuation of policy by other means. This further elaborates that when all other means involving, negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy fail then as a last resort war has to happen.

Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist in his famous book (Art of War) thought to have been written around the 5th century BCE discusses the principles used to fight a war to win it. It has influenced military strategy, leadership and even business tactics which still are relevant in today’s contemporary times.

Wars, as Clausewitz noted, are the continuation of policies by other means, tied to politics and state agendas.

By giving the example of these two generals I wanted to establish the viewpoint that their opinions regarding war are still read and respected today. They have not gone obsolete, students still study them and research them, which further indicates that wars cannot be abolished as their text is still being read and understood otherwise it would have been forgotten in the past. It is still held relevant to the current affairs and situations of war and that is the main reason they are studied, which means that they still hold logic in them as to why wars will never be abolished.

We can see the example from the current times as well that despite the world has progressed, many things have changed, but the war in its entirety has not changed or been abolished. Still, in the 21st century, wars have been fought.whether it be the most recent of the Israel-Hamas War(2023 ), the civil war in Sudan(2023) or the Russian attack on Ukraine(2022). This shows that Developing civilizations do not mean that mechanisms to remove or abolish wars exist.

There are different schools of thought that hold their opinions on war, for example in this research I have taken into account two major schools of thought on international relations which are realism and liberalism. We can see that realists believe that war is inevitable, and if we take into account liberalists they think that wars cannot be abolished but reduced because of human cooperation as humans are good by nature. However, both converge into having a common point that wars cannot be abolished.

To conclude, we can see that wars cannot be abolished because their example is like water, which does not have a definite shape and they can take the shape of whichever container they are in just like water, wars do not have a particular cause to be fought. Its cause depends on the circumstances and conditions. Through this, on an ending note, we can say that wars can never be abolished.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.