Let's face it, humanity has a lousy definition, accompanying practice, and analysis of peace.
Is the phenomena of the Peace/War cycle in human events that of a wave pattern in concert with other recurring circumstances of nature on Earth and/or this galaxy? Is it a history that is doomed to repeat itself like seasonal changes of the many frequencies of life and death? Is the phenomena a reflex of biological substrates conditioned to the on-going processes of planetary decay? Is humanity's only respite from the phenomena to be found outside the confines of Earth or the galaxy? Is humanity doomed to repeat the peace/war scenario despite all attempts to prevent the cyclicity because of the impositions of planetary decay which forces biological substrates to make adaptive alterations/adjustments as a means of maintaining some measure of equilibrium?
Why is it that many people are intrigued by the strategies applied to war and conflict, whether between nations or a citizenry and a police force? Why is it that many people are not intrigued by efforts to promote peace? Is it because we use words such as "effort" and "attempt" instead of "strategy"? Why does the word "strategy" imply more of an assumed sophistication and intelligence? And if we do not employ the methods of "tactical advantage" by way of direct military action, is such activity nonetheless present in trade wars, tariffs and other economic maneuvers? Is humanity never to be able to get over its insecurities, suspicions and mistrust that even if war does not ensue in the military sense, it occurs in ways and means that creating life effecting losses, erosion, and devastation nonetheless? If so, then those who engage in financial theft from millions of innocent people through their various stock market gaming techniques, are either to be denoted as government protected pirates or mercenaries who provide the government with a portion of their ill-gotten gains through fines and penalties. In essence, it is a strategy of war carried out by a few who enlist others as soldiers who very often use a computer as their armament. Whenever there is money or some other resource to be had, the system over-seeing the quantity, quality and distribution... is rigged against the majority for a minority.
When the battlefields become business transactions or legislative sessions out of which millions of lives can be ruined while only a few are served... we have the conditions of war, and not peace. Nature too can effect a war against humanity by using any number of armaments called tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, mud slides, forest fires, pandemics, floods, earthquakes, asteroid impact, insect infestation, etc... In such a perspective we might want to ask whether peace actually exists or is it but another formula of utopianism developed by the occasion that there is so little of it that the situation makes it all the more desirable... because of its rarity? Is war, in some fashion, the standard, as measured by one or another form of competitiveness because we have not been taught otherwise and all institutions encourage competitiveness and the development of applicable strategies that only rarely make allowances for practices of peace like "time out" zones used by children in games of chase? Yet, with all the eating and drinking used as reinforcements for peaceful moments, such peaceful moments very often are used to provide a moment of uninterrupted though processing for considering options of strategy to assist oneself and/or another(s) to increase their competitiveness and edge out any and all would-be opponent.
Indeed, one must consider whether life itself is due to unrecognized processes of competition or we would not otherwise need an immune system. And in the case of psychological immunity, many a person adheres to the thoughts of those from centuries past. No less, systems of business, law, government, religion, music, science, art and the like are all linked to a past of ideas whose emphasis in the past may not have provided much of a strategy for living better when first conceived. They are only valuable if accompanying social conditions permit them to be valuable. Yet, for all that humanity has thought, it has not provided the whole of humanity with a lasting measure of peace... if we can assume that peace is as valuable as many of us think that it is... as our assumptions suppose. But what if it is a dead end? That it is but another type of cloud-watching distraction? And what if war may be more profitable, its profit is short-term... like a pain being addressed with a narcotic that needs an ever larger dosage to become sated... like more money, more power, more bombs, more public attention, etc...?
If our bodies function on the "strategy" of struggle to grow and maintain relative physiological, emotional and mental equalibriums, and from this is extrapolated the larger expression of military combativeness; is peace little more than a Way-station between internal and/or external conflicts? Whereas in some instances internal conflicts can be externalized into military combat situations, suppressed desires of confronting that, them or those who are creating conditions of conflict can become internalized, such as in the case where anger is turned inward to the extent one seeks sanctuary away from the conflict by engaging in behavior that demoralizes oneself, kills oneself, deteriorates oneself, gets oneself incarcerated, or obliges oneself to go along with the directions of one's abuser(s). If the abuser is the environment, such as the Sun, cold weather, etc., is war an expressed attempt to find some (symbolic) measure of escape or at least some minimal relief... like a dog placed into a pit to fight another dog or a soldier placed into a combat situation and forced to kill or be killed... leaving no chance for retreat because they would then be labeled a deserter, coward and possibly imprisoned, executed and/or given a dishonorable discharge?
If we are honestly striving to develop strategies for peace, then we must question how can there be external practices thereof if National Health Care systems fail to effect measures which assist in developing effective methods for combating internal physical, emotional and mental conflicts? Whereas in the case when the internal sufferings of a Nation due to a lack of jobs or basic needs develop into protests from the citizenry, conflicts between Nations are not actually conflicts between the whole of the Nation, but one Nation's leadership against another Nation's leadership. They are simply not forced to address their personal conflicts in a more rational manner like individuals are who do not possess access to large military resources.
When it is noted that the human body is not perfect, that flaws can be identified, the irregularities may be viewed in evolutionary terms that imperfection is necessary because it permits adaptability and modification to an environment that is itself not perfect. If humanity was perfect, it would not necessarily be the humanity we understand it as... and suggests the presumed god of humanity is not perfect if we are to believe that humanity is in the image of this god. Either the god is imperfect, the image was drawn up by an imperfect artist, or the medium (environment) is sufficiently lacking in the elements to construct such an image of perfection. If such perfection existed, There would be no need for conflicts between males and females, males and males, or females and females because there would be peace... always peace, never conflict nor competition nor combativeness. That is if we can assume this is how peace is to be defined.
If there was an actual interest in peace, there would be an active "pentagon" of peace with enough power to stop any and all from being able to engage in war... backed up with billion dollar corporations who viewed peace as being in their best interests instead of making money off of producing military goods or offering military services. There would be no money or other resource that could be exchanged. There would be no badges, medals, honors or uniforms dedicated to war as forms of positive reinforcement. Nations would not be permitted to engage in military conflicts as a means of distracting (or entertaining) a citizenry so that it would not protest against a government that does not want to or is too inept to deal effectively with addressing mounting social problems.
So what might be some strategies of peace? Let us suggest altering or abolishing some businesses, governments and religions. In the case of abolishing prisons, we would have to understand what brings a person to be in conflict with civil authority, or why civil authority doesn't alter its methods of justice and incarceration so as to address that which brings a person to become conflicted. Is it physical, emotional or mental? A combination perhaps? An what about those whose livelihood rests on the requirement that criminals are needed and we therefore must have a social structure which demands a perpetuation of conditions that produce criminals so that such institutions can continue? If we say we are going to get rid of prisons and police forces, there might well be an outcry about what we are going to do with those who commit crimes. But instead of addressing changes in the law and social structure, the easy way out is to perpetuate the prison system. Then again, if we say that those who come into conflict with civil authorities do so because of some physical, emotional, or mental problem because of a given social dynamic, and yet offer no means of addressing the social dynamic as being the source of the problem... because we claim that the reasons for criminal behavior are complex... thus giving us an excuse to fail in an attempt we introduce for consideration... what sort of peace does this provide, and for whom? If some people are not able to be domesticated to the point of not engaging in criminal behavior, then why let them continue to deplete resources that could be better used for someone who is a non-criminal?
To suggest getting rid of established institutions such as prisons and police forces is similar to saying we should get rid of religions, governments and businesses. It doesn't matter whether they are actively involved in peace activities, the fact that they appear to be non-active in war activities is that which measures their acceptability. Whereas a church may be involved in the conflict of combating poverty or some other social problem, is not viewed as an expression of non-peace, but pro-peace efforts. It is very much like a city worker engaged in the removal of graffiti by using paint, chemicals, scraping, sandblasting or using water pressure in a recurring battle against those who "attack" various socially visible objects with paint... typically from spray cans, in order to place initials, words or graphics there-on. Whereas some might view the "expressions" as a type of art, primitive anthropological exercise, or initials carving like that found on trees, wooden park benches, hand railings, etc..., they are defined by social authority as a misdemeanor criminal activity.
Because interpretations of war and peace have become crystallized into institutional forms of analysis, attempts to reassess the phenomena from a different vantage point might well be met with antagonisms from those whose personal identities have become inextricably intertwined with such conventions; making such adherents the "go-to" person whom authority seek out for referencing either political, social, or academic correctness. In other words, those who would attempt to offer an alternative perception might be viewed a threat and thus be subjected to attacks by those who other-wise offer their own intellectual variation of a peace strategy! They may not very peaceful to those who would presume to trample upon their claimed domain of analytical prowess.
As noted in the previous Britannica article on War, there are a variety of approaches to the analysis of war that can be applied to efforts at understanding peace. Some attempt to analyse singular or multiple singular instances, while others attempt a larger comprehensive grasp in terms of behavior from a biological/genetic/environmental model. Yet, so what? Let's say an analysis of peace and war in one country appeals to the reigning authority, but not the analysts or reigning authority in another country whose leadership wants to use war as a means of acquiring territory or resources. In other words, you can be right in you assessment, and be persuasive to the leadership in your own country; but if your persuasions don't convince others, where does this leave us? When we have large nations such as the United States who leadership can contrive excuses to justify a rationale for engaging in a war "theater" so that they can assume some "commanding" character role and have their name and the performance highlighted in the marquees of television, radio, magazines and newspapers... of what value is all the research on peace strategies if it isn't used, but war research is? For example, the justification for Bush to effect a retribution on Saddam for supposedly trying to kill is daddy based on the frivolous claim he had weapons of mass destruction was well known as a lie, but there was no one to stop them from committing murder and mayhem and supplying Cheney's former employer Haliburton with government contracts without competition so as to repay them for their campaign contributions.
What good is all the research on peace if more people are interested in war research in order to acquire knowledge for greater tactical advantages... because they want a war, sometime, someplace, in order to play soldier so that new war machines can be tested and provide companies with additional contracts for creating different machines to help them devise new methods of playing war games? What good is all the research if nations are periodically led by idiots whose idea of peace is doing what they want? No doubt if other leaders had the resources that the United States does, they too would use their position as a means of "persuading" other countries to see things there way... or else suffer some consequence... be it military action, trade action, tariff action, or whatever scheme can be contrive to induce someone to accept what is handed to them. There is less effort at confronting those conditions which cause leaders to commit themselves to a war mentality, just as there are less efforts at confronting those conditions which cause people to commit a crime. It's not that answers aren't available, those in leadership may not see how they can personally profit off of their application, or that there are not enough in the private sector who care to advance any effort in the direction because they too do not see any gain for themselves. If there are not enough altruistic people who find pursuing efforts at peace to their advantage, all the research in the world is of no value.
Analogously, let's take for example climate research carried out by numerous experts. For all the research having been compiled and the recommendations made... world leaders have not been moved towards definitive steps on a global scale. And if you have a population that doesn't believe in the research and are enabled to elect someone who sees things their way because an elections system is rigged like that in the United States; what good is all the research if it is denied and the leadership wants to destroy all the research... and instead wants to create conditions which produce even more problems for the environment? And on top of this, there is the fact that humanity can't actually save the Earth from its eventual demise... it can only slow it down. No less, the incremental deteriorations have incremental effects on biology, physiology, and psychology as an adaptive mechanism for purposes of equilibrium, which causes adjustments to belief systems which can be called either rationalized adjustments or adjusted rationalizations... since beliefs are nonetheless compiled rationalizations.
Because there are no government agencies willing to provide contracts for developing an effective strategy of peace, but the department of defense may well provide a grant to someone interested in developing a new war strategy, where does this leave us? There are not companies providing jobs to those wanting to establish strategies for peace, but they are looking for those whose gaming strategies can be applied to gaming software that may then promote new war strategy scenarios. We don't have elementary teachers instructing to get out a writing tablet upon which to write on the topic of peace, just as we don't have a mandatory class in Universities on peace and conflict resolution. Instead, we ludicrously have after-the-fact conflict counselors or negotiators. Preventative measures forgo the possibility of having to develop some business to make money from. Because of the overriding reliance on a social structure in which money oils the wheels to help everything function... regardless if the functioning is self-defeating in the long run or not, how are we to have peace if war and conflict provides more opportunity for someone to make money? For example, if it was indicated that the absence of religion would create the beginning of conditions from which peace would eventually evolve, how many would find an excuse not to comply? And what if getting rid of Capitalism were a major requirement? Or getting rid of sports? Or getting rid of television, radio, plays, music, theater, moves, magazines, books and newspapers? What if Democracy, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Judaism, or Islam were in the way of establishing global peace? Or how about requiring the absence of eating meat? Or getting rid of all military organizations? What if all peace experts claimed that Wall Street or the World bank was in the way for establishing global peace? What if a Nation such as the U.S. is found to be in the way? Or homosexuality, or the world's population of Chinese, or French, or Germans, or panda bears? What if it is found that the existence of French fries, hamburgers, or chicken keeps us from having peace?
What if no one wants to change their way of life in order to establish peace through compromise— by way of breaking open the egg in the middle, instead of the little or big end... like the warring factions in Swift's, Gulliver's Travels tale about the land of the Lilliputians? How do we develop a strategy of peace if its obverse has multiple dimensions such as war, rebellion, riot, revolution, crime, and variously entitled other conflicts... including one called competition sometimes defined in terms of a "healthy competition"?
If the environment exists as a mixture of conflicts (air streams, continental drifts, lunar effects on oceans, etc...), and biology is "always" under attack from oxygen, and chemical processes, and our physiology fights off infections, develops defenses against the sun, cold, etc..., where is peace if it is not defined as anything but a relative state of existence... of an equilibrium making incremental adjustments to incremental instances of decay? And thus war is an extension of that occurring even on the atomic level... with the absence of interactions as that which we might define as peace? Yet, is the vacuum of space to be that which we might define as peace? Is the absence of everything, such as time, matter, light, magnetism, heat, sound... an indication of peace? However, what about the absence of absence without referencing it to its opposite? If the vacuum of space is a hollow to which nothing flows into, is it therefore exerting a pressure outward from an inner source or that anything which flows around it has "pockets" which are uniform? As if vacuum was a bump in the road and the presence of anything else (matter, time, etc.,) was a pothole. And before any reader raises an objection, yes this is an opposite view of what we now believe. Let's provide a small illustration which describes the existence of this hypothetical "vacuum pressure".
If we suggest that vacuum is positive like peace, with peace acting as a pressure to curtail the rise of war (hence the "stars" one's sees when receiving a blow to the head or experience a momentary loss of oxygen to the brain), why isn't peace, like space, more uniform? Or is it an as yet unmapped uniformity, even though the universe is undergoing an expansion? What then does the expansion of the Universe have to say with respect to the intervals between war and peace, as between the vacuum of space and its sparse occupancy (or space "fitted" with periodic forms)? No less, the image gives the impression of a zipper (amongst other impressions), as well as the "rope ladder" of DNA, sidewinder snake movements, key and lock inter-meshing, water waves, and multiple others such as the peristalsis activity of earthworms and human intestines which are described as wave movements.
Yet, though war is destructive, less extreme forms of conflict can produce desirable changes. Perhaps we should view war, in its lesser formulas of interaction, as positive pressure and peace as negative pressure... or the absence of pressure, like a vacuum. However, while such speculations are useful in a philosophical sense, they are not useful for those who become easily confused by assortments of contradiction. They prefer practical and concrete discussions about a topic in terms relative to human situations that they think they understand. For example, if two people or two gangs are fighting, they want to know how to stop them from fighting ever again. While some so-called expert might want to describe the situation as being sociologically complex, this may be little more than an excuse for not having any idea what to do except for relying on some convention of imposing the presence of some legal force upon those involved in a conflict. This might involve fines and punishment such as community service or incarceration, as well as options such as forced schooling, employment, curfew, military training or some other more specialized approach. Most often, it does not include an alteration in the household or larger social structure. The individual(s) involved are told to comply with existing rules instead of the rules being examined. For example, conflicts can arise if a monkey was placed into the living quarters of humans and vice versa. In other words, the fit is bad. Children can sometimes grow beyond the social structure to which they are asked to comply with, though they have not necessarily matured beyond the circumstances... but that being placed into a military situation is not a viable alternative for them.
Whereas many of us recognize that evolution takes place, we are not so ready to accept that it occurs with an individual or particular group. While they have the means of growth, they have not the proper environment for the development of such. Hence, they come into conflict in what may be described as an attempt to flap one's wings and fly... except there are too many restrictions in place which chain them to the ground. The substitute alternatives they find typically result in some form of lawlessness, with age and type of offense used to determine severity of socialized intervention. Thus, without knowing it, in our efforts to apply ideas about peace to practical and personal circumstances, we get so caught up in the minutia of our daily lives we forget about our place in the larger global sphere of events with respect to peace and war. Indeed, how difficult it seems that humanity might achieve global peace when there is so much personal discord. When war provides a reprieve or time out from personal conflicts, though there are personal conflicts which also arise therein, is peace not the obverse momentary time out from war? And does not war require participants who think they need to engage in a war... that may be instigated by those who want to practice some war strategy? Where then are those who want to practice a peace strategy? Why are there those who want to war against peaceful people? Does behavior occurring on the human level have a dimension on the atomic level?
If peace and war are better described in atomic terms because this is where the human practice originates, though not necessarily on parallel formulations; is the way to stop war then to stop its supposed atomistic equivalent? Or have we reached an impasse in our analysis and have turned to nature to find its presence in processes seemingly beyond our control; thereby giving ourselves an excuse to look elsewhere and decide instead to say that their is no cure for war because it is not like a disease, it is a natural process of existence? And to stop war entirely would then set into motion a different type of life... and living that the human animal is not accustomed to and might be unable to sufficiently adapt to? If we can engage in atomic behavior that changes human behavior, can the opposite be true? Can humanity force war into a non-existence... forever? Or if we forbid it on Earth, will humans then increase a yearning to live elsewhere thus increasing the space program, just so it can once again play at war? Will such a situation bring humanity to the attention of other presumed alien races who would then think they have a worthy contender and would seek to do battle with it?
In developing strategies for peace, let us view it as a tabletop board game that permits players to add or subtract different facets of living. For example, would removing one or all world religions result in increased peace? If we were to remove Christianity, would other religions rush in to fill some assumed void? What has caused the need for religion, and in particular, the need for a monotheistic religion? Are all religions little more than mental reflexes to conditions arising from a deteriorating environment affecting a species with a biology that must utilize a method of adaptive rationalization as a survival mechanism in order to maintain some level of equilibrium? Would there be increased peace if everyone was a millionaire and no one was permitted to steal or swindle another's wealth from them, nor sell products which have such hight costs as to quickly deplete the money of consumers? Would outlawing militaries or the manufacture of weapons help to promote more peace? Or would war find a way to become expressed because there exists a "warrior gene" in everyone, but is manifest in some while others have lesser forms of its functionality?
Are war and peace what we think they are... as we describe them, or are they images of something else? And how clear are the images? Do they actually make up a dichotomy or we only think they do? Will using any type of as yet proposed model help us to acquire a better understanding that will be universally accepted and applied? Are war and peace expressions of the life cycle of all biology? Of all existence?
Clearly, our approaches to analyzing peace and war have not yielded any lasting results to the extent of transforming the global human condition. When war or the threat of war during relative calm can command attention from others who will provide them with goods to appease their frustrations (such as giving armaments to Israel), it does them little good for them to cry the alarm for others to intervene when others are preoccupied with some other conflict. Hence, let us ask if a greater global peace could ensue if Palestenians and/or Israelis were killed off? If all Africa? All of South America? What about the predatory financial district of Wall Street? What if America chose to be neutral in all disputes? And if nuclear bombs are supposed to stop war, why is there still aggression from those with nuclear arsenals? Is it alright for them not to engage in conflicts with one another but are able to carry out aggressions against those who do not have a similar arsenal? Whereas we have deterrents to large, global wars, we do not have to smaller engagements. A history of repeated war has influenced the adopted opinion that war is natural and acceptable in some circumstances.
If we adopt an analogy such that war is an infection like malaria, its continued presence in the world with devastating effects to many innocent lives and the absence of an effective vaccine to be offered as a cure; efforts to address the problem of its occurrence in the first place is similar to the efforts of those who want to eliminate war from ever occurring. Hence, is malaria a natural occurrence that has always existed, or was their predisposing circumstances and humanity is merely a carrier of the "war" disease?