Peace is something everyone wants but is something everyone rarely achieves. It is a means to solving all the world’s problems and we all want it, but we almost never get it. Why? It’s as simple as there is always something we don’t like. Humanity always loves to have control over their situation. It has been that way since the dawn of our species. People like to be in charge so when someone decides to take control some people have a serious problem with that. Why? Because whoever is in control is allowed more than those who do not have control. Then you have the people that do not mind having less than others. Those are the people that are preyed upon by those who like to fight for the right to the top. So, it’s a battle between two ideologies and methodologies. Those who would kill to preserve all they’ve obtained and those who are content with what they have.
Maintaining would require humanity to end it’s war with itself since the dawn of its history. We would need to be content and not seek to further ourselves and our way of life. In order for humanity to advance, we need to have that fire to continue to improve ourselves and our way of life otherwise risk falling behind in advancing ourselves and our culture to the point where we hit a dark age of advancement. Our combative natures continue to push humanity forward so although peace is something we all want, we can’t ever actually obtain it because of the nature of humankind. How are we going to advance and push humanity forward if we are content with our way of life. It’s if we are not when we fight to preserve everything we have.
I am one that is in favor of a world without war but in order for that to occur the impossible would have to occur and people would have to be satisfied with what they have. That will be a shocker to see the world embrace that concept considering today we have leadership based entirely around taking from others that exists in many different parts of the world. I wouldn’t expect an end to war to be an easy task. I would pursue another option.
Instead of pursuing an end to violence and combat, maybe find an end to what causes people to fight. People always attack issues at the basic level instead of finding an end to confrontation where it really matters, at the root source. If we are fighting because we can’t access water and it is needed to feed our children, some would fight the people who are attempting to access the water to get a quick and easy end to the problem. But, in truth, would that be a smart option when we can find a way to work together to increase the amount of water received every week. Fighting for that small amount during a heat wave could save your child from heat stroke for one day, but what about the rest of the week. If you go to jail you won’t be able to save your child from heat stroke for longer than you could have if you didn’t fight in the first place. Thinking about these situations before acting would show there are many better options than fighting.
Peace for eternity is a very wonderful concept that seems fanciful because of the inability for humans to reconcile their differences in times of extreme duress. In order for people to end combat worldwide a consensus would have to be reached about how and why we are able to fight. Countries are currently still allowed to fight for resources trivial to many people. War can be waged with the push of a button. So, maybe more of a worldwide consensus that war should only be allowed in the most necessary of cases will prevent a future littered with potential mass death considering there are now weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) currently available and in production by many leading terrorist countries and organizations.
If North Korea is allowed to build nuclear weapons than maybe to prevent a future where North Korea is nuclear capable the UN should strengthen their own rules against war to prevent entirely the development of nuclear weapons or risk nuclear annihilation. If someone had a gun to their head maybe they would think twice before breaking the rules. North Korea is essentially on their own in this. But, what happens if a stronger nation like Russia decides to build nukes, what then? We can’t enforce such a rule, can we?
Yes if we use all the UN together. If the United Nations works together as a whole functioning and cooperative unit, with the United States, China and the rest of the world, Russia would be no threat and they’d have to back off. Same could be said for other countries and this would be a great way to keep peace. So, if we force other nations to not build WMDs by force or be punished with an equal and opposing force to their nuclear capability, they either listen or die which would make sense considering we’re dealing with world ending disaster if things go wrong. This would make it much more difficult for a single country to gain an advantage in the world when we are all united for a common goal which in this case is peace.