Jaimish Patel

Mrs. Thomas
UWRT 1102-034
9 February 2015
War: The Endless Game
War is interesting. Humans, and only humans, with the same views gather and fight other
groups of humans for their differences. We do it for power, recognition, respect, and fear. Thats
the way humans behave, its the way we always have, and we have all gotten used to it . But for a
second, pretend youre not human. Pretend youre a bird, simply following the natural order,
looking down at a battle field. All of a sudden, it seems so stupid. Why are these people killing
each other? What will they gain? Its interesting that only humans engage in conventional
organized war. Maybe that is because we have the power to. Take the Native Americans; when
Christopher Columbus first touched the Americas, people were running up and willing to share
everything they had with him and his crew. Instead of graciously accepting everything they had to
offer, Columbus enslaved everyone. He forced them to take him to the source of their treasures
and used them for labor. Much later, when the Native Americans were cornered, they fought, and
were massacred. The war between the whites and the Native Americans was very one sided, since
the whites clearly had the upper hand, but nevertheless, the battles making up this war went on.
Each of the battles were the effect of the last and the cause of the next. That is because every battle
and war leaves some amount of lingering tension that leads the next one. Nonetheless, war on a

larger scale can eventually come to an end for many reasons including the facts that people are
getting smarter, violence has been decreasing, and war, in the long run, ends itself.
There are many reasons to go to war; one of the biggest reasons is that people want more,
whether it be land, power, or revenge. When one party wants power or property, its members can
take it unless another party already has it. This is the most common backdrop to conventional war.
The two parties would then fight over it, using whatever tactics are dominant in that time. Suppose
party A wins this war and takes the land that was previously owned by party B. After this happens,
party B is at a loss, and they dont know what to do about all the destruction and havoc that party
A has caused; nevertheless, its members power through and eventually rebuild. At the same time,
party A has won a war. They are happy about this, but from a sociological perspective, they are
also torn; they have successfully taken something from party B that did not belong to them.
Knowing this is wrong, they attempt to justify the internal conflict. In the past, the usual method
of justification was ethnocentrism, the idea that one race is above another, which leads to racism .
This causes tension and anger among party B and a need for revenge. While this tension will never
stop, it does not mean it cannot slow down. This is where politics and trade come into play. If
party B continuously manufactures something that party A needs, party A cannot, so to speak, cut
open the golden goose, or they lose it forever. Therefore, party A decides to make a quid pro quo
agreement with party B, one that will mutually benefit each party. This demonstrates that peace
and hatred can coexist without violence. The reason this is so important is that when this is
implemented everywhere it creates an ever-growing network of mutually beneficial relationships

between nations that make war between them so much more harmful than staying at peace. In
other words, war would destroy the bond of two countries in terms of trade.
When trade is implemented in a mutually beneficial relationship, it becomes very difficult
to start a war for anyone. This is because relationships dont just include two parties. Usually, in
globalization and global trade, it requires at least three. When these many networks of trade are
combined with politics, things become tense. A lot of times, nations do not want to ruin their
relationships with other nations, because in the future, it may come back to ruin them. Instead,
good relationships turn into allied relationships, and allied relationships are beneficial
relationships. For example, the United States has a good relationship with China, but the two
countries are run so differently. The truth of the matter is, neither of these countries likes the other.
China has the means to cheaply produce products, and the United States puts them on an ever
growing tab. So, for the time being, the two countries tolerate each other, since theyre both
benefiting so much from the relationship.
Seth Borenstein explains that violence, not to be mistaken with death, has seen an overall
decrease over the last few hundred years. Peoples general IQs are rising over generations, and
this is one of the biggest reasons that violence is down (Borenstein). Another factor that comes
into play is law and its enforcement. With more laws being passed allowing what is now seen as
right and prohibiting what is now seen as wrong, people are more reluctant to do what is right. For
example, gay marriage is now becoming legalized and people are beginning to see that it is not
wrong. It seems that the younger generation who has been born through the movement is highly

tolerant of it, while older people, who grew up with different values and ideologies are more
against it. However, it is also true that what is seen as good in the eyes of society is the decision
of the elites and the wealthy. This is because the wealthy donate to politicians and, through quid
pro quo, the politicians, in return for giving them a position of power, return what their lobbyists
want. This has been a relationship between people in power, whether it be through money or
authority, for hundreds of years. Regardless of where it comes from, tolerance for what is good
and prohibition of what is bad has been causing a decline in violence from fear of consequences
and moral conflict. Between violence, death, and destruction, war may seem ridiculous and
unnecessary; but, it is not all bad. Ian Morris explains why war, in moderation, had proven to be
good for society.
Though violence is decreasing, it will never be gone; however, violence and war are not
the same thing. Unexpectedly, they actually have different outcomes; nothing good comes from
violence, but a lot of good comes from war (Morris). One reason he states is that while war is the
worst imaginable way to create larger, more peaceful societies, it is pretty much the only way
humans have found. In every war, each party comes out as a closer group with more advancement,
but at the expense of human lives. Also, war brings people together in times of hardship through
mutual hatred of a third party. This causes love and peace between two parties. Another reason
Morris has for believing that war is good is that over the long run, the large societies forged from
war have made us richer. Though the Native Americans had to suffer so the whites could have
land in the Americas, it did lead to all this, the greater good. That begs the question, was all their

suffering worth how much the human race has progressed over the years? Though it is a matter of
opinion, the fact that we dedicate a day to a man who enslaved tens of thousands answers that
question. Morriss final point is this: For millennia, war has created peace, and destruction has
created wealth, but in our own age humanity has gotten so good at fightingour weapons so
destructive, our organizations so efficientthat war is beginning to make further war of this kind
impossible. His final point is that war will literally end itself. What he is saying, here, is that
while everyone may have extremely destructive nuclear weapons, nobody wants to fire them, since
in the end, they are firing them on themselves. This is due to the concept of mutually assured
destruction, the idea that if one party fires a weapon, while it is in the air, the receiving party has
time to fire theirs. This causes a ceasefire between parties and the will to not fire their weapons.
This, however, breaks down when we involve terrorism. ISIS, the recent face of terrorism, believes
what they are doing is right, to the point that its members are willing to suicide bomb places as
their final will. This creates a major problem in the concept of mutually assured destruction
because if someone does not care about staying alive, they will not hesitate to fire a nuclear missile
in the direction of their enemies. In conclusion, all of Morriss points are valid, but impossible to
prove. Morriss explanations for why war is good are objectively accurate. He explains that war
may has drawbacks but in the long run, those drawbacks seem insignificant. Then again, there is
no point in living like humans if we dont care about our own generations; in other words, humans
are selfish, and would not die so that the race progresses in 200 years. Regardless, war goes on
because these people are not in the drivers seat. War has proven to be disastrous and petrifying,

but worst of all, wars advantage is being unpredictable. It is declared by elites and fought by these
people who dont want it in the first place.
War has often been described as a chess game between elites. While elites may declare
wars, the common people fight in them. The problem with the game is that the players often lose
nothing if they lose. The pawns, the rooks, and the knights may die, but at the end of the day, it
doesnt affect the players. The problem with this system is that the elites lose nothing. At a certain
point, however, moral development has to prevail over the gamble of lives. As we all know,
however, for the time being, war is prevalent; but, it does not have to persist. The reason behind
the reasons for war is disagreement, and behind all wars are people who make decisions. Violence
is decreasing because these people have been developing morally. Maybe this means that people
will eventually develop to the point of having a unanimous definition of the word wrong. Another
point worth making is that equality among people has been growing over recent years. People have
been more accepting of everyone, regardless of past generations and what they stood for. War is a
necessary bridge to peace, and must happen for the human race to thrive. Once the bridge has been
crossed, there can be peace; but until then, the definition of peace will remain mutually assured
destruction.

Works Cited
Borenstein, Seth. "World Becoming Less Violent: Despite Global Conflict, Statistics Show
Violence In Steady Decline." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Oct.
2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Handley, Andrew. "10 Signs We Are Headed Into World War III - Listverse." Listverse.
Listverse, 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
Horgan, John. "Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Should You Believe in
World Peace?" Slate. The Slate Group, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.
Kant, Immanuel, and Lewis White Beck. Perpetual peace. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1795.
Kelly, R. E. "A 'Confucian Long Peace' in Pre-Western East Asia?" European Journal of
International Relations 18.3 (2012): 407-30. Print.
Lukin, Artyom. "Imagining World War III -- In 2034." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2015.
Morris, Ian. "War, What Is It Good for For? These Four Things, Actually." Defense One. The
Atlantic, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.