essay on war is necessary for peace

Essay on War and Peace

Students are often asked to write an essay on War and Peace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War and Peace

Understanding war and peace.

War and peace are two sides of the same coin, representing conflict and harmony respectively. War often arises from disagreements, leading to violence and destruction. On the other hand, peace symbolizes tranquility, unity, and cooperation.

The Impact of War

War can cause immense suffering and loss. It destroys homes, breaks families, and causes physical and emotional pain. Moreover, it can lead to economic instability and environmental damage, affecting future generations.

The Importance of Peace

Peace is essential for the well-being of individuals and societies. It fosters growth, prosperity, and happiness. Peace encourages dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect, helping to resolve conflicts peacefully.

250 Words Essay on War and Peace

Introduction.

War and peace, two contrasting states, have shaped human civilization, politics, and cultural identity. The dichotomy between these two conditions is not merely a matter of physical conflict or tranquility but extends to philosophical, psychological, and ethical dimensions.

War: A Double-Edged Sword

War, often perceived as destructive, has paradoxically been a catalyst for some societal advancements. Technological innovations, political shifts, and social change have all been byproducts of war. However, the cost of these “benefits” is immense, leading to loss of life, displacement, and socioeconomic upheavals.

The Necessity of Peace

Peace, on the other hand, is a state of harmony and cooperation, conducive to prosperity, growth, and human development. It fosters an environment where creativity, innovation, and collaboration can thrive. Peace is not merely the absence of war but also the presence of justice and equality, which are fundamental for sustainable development.

Striking a Balance

The challenge lies in striking a balance between the pursuit of peace and the inevitability of war. This balance is not about accepting war as a necessary evil, but about understanding its causes and working towards preventing them. Peacebuilding efforts should focus on addressing root causes of conflict, like inequality and injustice, and promoting dialogue, understanding, and cooperation.

In conclusion, the complex relationship between war and peace is a reflection of the human condition. Striving for peace while understanding the realities of war is a delicate but necessary balance we must achieve. It is through this equilibrium that we can hope to progress as a society, ensuring a better future for generations to come.

500 Words Essay on War and Peace

War and peace are two polar opposites, yet they are inextricably linked in the complex tapestry of human history. They represent the dual nature of humanity: our capacity for both destruction and harmony. This essay explores the intricate relationship between war and peace, the impacts they have on societies, and the philosophical perspectives that underpin both.

The Dualism of War and Peace

War and peace are not merely states of conflict and tranquility, but rather manifestations of human nature and societal structures. War, in its essence, is a reflection of our primal instincts for survival, dominance, and territoriality. It exposes the darker side of humanity, where violence and power struggles prevail. Conversely, peace symbolizes our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and mutual understanding. It showcases the brighter side of humanity, where dialogue and diplomacy reign.

Impacts of War and Peace

The impacts of war and peace are profound and far-reaching. War, while destructive, has often catalyzed technological advancement and societal change. The World Wars, for instance, led to the development of nuclear technology and the establishment of international bodies like the United Nations. However, the cost of war is immense, leading to loss of life, economic devastation, and psychological trauma.

On the other hand, peace allows societies to flourish. It fosters economic growth, social development, and cultural exchange. Yet, peace is not merely the absence of war. It requires active effort to maintain social justice, equality, and mutual respect among diverse groups.

Philosophical Perspectives

War and peace have been subjects of philosophical debate for centuries. Realists argue that war is an inevitable part of human nature and international relations, while idealists contend that peace can be achieved through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes viewed humans as naturally combative, necessitating strong governance to maintain peace. Conversely, Immanuel Kant argued for ‘Perpetual Peace’ through democratic governance and international cooperation. These differing viewpoints reflect the complexity of war and peace, and the ongoing struggle to reconcile our violent instincts with our aspirations for a peaceful world.

In conclusion, war and peace are multifaceted concepts that reveal much about the human condition. Understanding their dynamics is crucial to shaping a world that leans towards peace, even as it acknowledges the realities of war. The challenge lies in mitigating the triggers of war and nurturing the conditions for peace. It is a task that requires not just political and diplomatic effort, but also a deep introspection into our collective values and aspirations.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on War and Its Effects
• Essay on Kargil War
• Essay on Disadvantages of War

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

December 2, 2021

Peace Is More Than War’s Absence, and New Research Explains How to Build It

A new project measures ways to promote positive social relations among groups

By Peter T. Coleman , Allegra Chen-Carrel & Vincent Hans Michael Stueber

PeopleImages/Getty Images

Today, the misery of war is all too striking in places such as Syria, Yemen, Tigray, Myanmar and Ukraine. It can come as a surprise to learn that there are scores of sustainably peaceful societies around the world, ranging from indigenous people in the Xingu River Basin in Brazil to countries in the European Union. Learning from these societies, and identifying key drivers of harmony, is a vital process that can help promote world peace.

Unfortunately, our current ability to find these peaceful mechanisms is woefully inadequate. The Global Peace Index (GPI) and its complement the Positive Peace Index (PPI) rank 163 nations annually and are currently the leading measures of peacefulness. The GPI, launched in 2007 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), was designed to measure negative peace , or the absence of violence, destructive conflict, and war. But peace is more than not fighting. The PPI, launched in 2009, was supposed to recognize this and track positive peace , or the promotion of peacefulness through positive interactions like civility, cooperation and care.

Yet the PPI still has many serious drawbacks. To begin with, it continues to emphasize negative peace, despite its name. The components of the PPI were selected and are weighted based on existing national indicators that showed the “strongest correlation with the GPI,” suggesting they are in effect mostly an extension of the GPI. For example, the PPI currently includes measures of factors such as group grievances, dissemination of false information, hostility to foreigners, and bribes.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The index also lacks an empirical understanding of positive peace. The PPI report claims that it focuses on “positive aspects that create the conditions for a society to flourish.” However, there is little indication of how these aspects were derived (other than their relationships with the GPI). For example, access to the internet is currently a heavily weighted indicator in the PPI. But peace existed long before the internet, so is the number of people who can go online really a valid measure of harmony?

The PPI has a strong probusiness bias, too. Its 2021 report posits that positive peace “is a cross-cutting facilitator of progress, making it easier for businesses to sell.” A prior analysis of the PPI found that almost half the indicators were directly related to the idea of a “Peace Industry,” with less of a focus on factors found to be central to positive peace such as gender inclusiveness, equity and harmony between identity groups.

A big problem is that the index is limited to a top-down, national-level approach. The PPI’s reliance on national-level metrics masks critical differences in community-level peacefulness within nations, and these provide a much more nuanced picture of societal peace . Aggregating peace data at the national level, such as focusing on overall levels of inequality rather than on disparities along specific group divides, can hide negative repercussions of the status quo for minority communities.

To fix these deficiencies, we and our colleagues have been developing an alternative approach under the umbrella of the Sustaining Peace Project . Our effort has various components , and these can provide a way to solve the problems in the current indices. Here are some of the elements:

Evidence-based factors that measure positive and negative peace. The peace project began with a comprehensive review of the empirical studies on peaceful societies, which resulted in identifying 72 variables associated with sustaining peace. Next, we conducted an analysis of ethnographic and case study data comparing “peace systems,” or clusters of societies that maintain peace with one another, with nonpeace systems. This allowed us to identify and measure a set of eight core drivers of peace. These include the prevalence of an overarching social identity among neighboring groups and societies; their interconnections such as through trade or intermarriage; the degree to which they are interdependent upon one another in terms of ecological, economic or security concerns; the extent to which their norms and core values support peace or war; the role that rituals, symbols and ceremonies play in either uniting or dividing societies; the degree to which superordinate institutions exist that span neighboring communities; whether intergroup mechanisms for conflict management and resolution exist; and the presence of political leadership for peace versus war.

A core theory of sustaining peace . We have also worked with a broad group of peace, conflict and sustainability scholars to conceptualize how these many variables operate as a complex system by mapping their relationships in a causal loop diagram and then mathematically modeling their core dynamics This has allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of how different constellations of factors can combine to affect the probabilities of sustaining peace.

Bottom-up and top-down assessments . Currently, the Sustaining Peace Project is applying techniques such as natural language processing and machine learning to study markers of peace and conflict speech in the news media. Our preliminary research suggests that linguistic features may be able to distinguish between more and less peaceful societies. These methods offer the potential for new metrics that can be used for more granular analyses than national surveys.

We have also been working with local researchers from peaceful societies to conduct interviews and focus groups to better understand the in situ dynamics they believe contribute to sustaining peace in their communities. For example in Mauritius , a highly multiethnic society that is today one of the most peaceful nations in Africa, we learned of the particular importance of factors like formally addressing legacies of slavery and indentured servitude, taboos against proselytizing outsiders about one’s religion, and conscious efforts by journalists to avoid divisive and inflammatory language in their reporting.

Today, global indices drive funding and program decisions that impact countless lives, making it critical to accurately measure what contributes to socially just, safe and thriving societies. These indices are widely reported in news outlets around the globe, and heads of state often reference them for their own purposes. For example, in 2017 , Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, though he and his country were mired in corruption allegations, referenced his country’s positive increase on the GPI by stating, “Receiving such high praise from an institute that once named this country the most violent in the world is extremely significant.” Although a 2019 report on funding for peace-related projects shows an encouraging shift towards supporting positive peace and building resilient societies, many of these projects are really more about preventing harm, such as grants for bolstering national security and enhancing the rule of law.

The Sustaining Peace Project, in contrast, includes metrics for both positive and negative peace, is enhanced by local community expertise, and is conceptually coherent and based on empirical findings. It encourages policy makers and researchers to refocus attention and resources on initiatives that actually promote harmony, social health and positive reciprocity between groups. It moves away from indices that rank entire countries and instead focuses on identifying factors that, through their interaction, bolster or reduce the likelihood of sustaining peace. It is a holistic perspective.  

Tracking peacefulness across the globe is a highly challenging endeavor. But there is great potential in cooperation between peaceful communities, researchers and policy makers to produce better methods and metrics. Measuring peace is simply too important to get only half-right. 

Essay on Peace

500 words essay peace.

Peace is the path we take for bringing growth and prosperity to society. If we do not have peace and harmony, achieving political strength, economic stability and cultural growth will be impossible. Moreover, before we transmit the notion of peace to others, it is vital for us to possess peace within. It is not a certain individual’s responsibility to maintain peace but everyone’s duty. Thus, an essay on peace will throw some light on the same topic.

Importance of Peace

History has been proof of the thousands of war which have taken place in all periods at different levels between nations. Thus, we learned that peace played an important role in ending these wars or even preventing some of them.

In fact, if you take a look at all religious scriptures and ceremonies, you will realize that all of them teach peace. They mostly advocate eliminating war and maintaining harmony. In other words, all of them hold out a sacred commitment to peace.

It is after the thousands of destructive wars that humans realized the importance of peace. Earth needs peace in order to survive. This applies to every angle including wars, pollution , natural disasters and more.

When peace and harmony are maintained, things will continue to run smoothly without any delay. Moreover, it can be a saviour for many who do not wish to engage in any disrupting activities or more.

In other words, while war destroys and disrupts, peace builds and strengthens as well as restores. Moreover, peace is personal which helps us achieve security and tranquillity and avoid anxiety and chaos to make our lives better.

How to Maintain Peace

There are many ways in which we can maintain peace at different levels. To begin with humankind, it is essential to maintain equality, security and justice to maintain the political order of any nation.

Further, we must promote the advancement of technology and science which will ultimately benefit all of humankind and maintain the welfare of people. In addition, introducing a global economic system will help eliminate divergence, mistrust and regional imbalance.

It is also essential to encourage ethics that promote ecological prosperity and incorporate solutions to resolve the environmental crisis. This will in turn share success and fulfil the responsibility of individuals to end historical prejudices.

Similarly, we must also adopt a mental and spiritual ideology that embodies a helpful attitude to spread harmony. We must also recognize diversity and integration for expressing emotion to enhance our friendship with everyone from different cultures.

Finally, it must be everyone’s noble mission to promote peace by expressing its contribution to the long-lasting well-being factor of everyone’s lives. Thus, we must all try our level best to maintain peace and harmony.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Peace

To sum it up, peace is essential to control the evils which damage our society. It is obvious that we will keep facing crises on many levels but we can manage them better with the help of peace. Moreover, peace is vital for humankind to survive and strive for a better future.

FAQ of Essay on Peace

Question 1: What is the importance of peace?

Answer 1: Peace is the way that helps us prevent inequity and violence. It is no less than a golden ticket to enter a new and bright future for mankind. Moreover, everyone plays an essential role in this so that everybody can get a more equal and peaceful world.

Question 2: What exactly is peace?

Answer 2: Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in which there is no hostility and violence. In social terms, we use it commonly to refer to a lack of conflict, such as war. Thus, it is freedom from fear of violence between individuals or groups.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

If You Want Peace, Prepare for War, and Diplomacy

A combination of deterrence and diplomacy is key to avoiding war and pursuing peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Monday, January 29, 2024 / By: Robert Einhorn

Publication Type: Analysis

This essay is part of a series, Pursuing Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea , that explores how the United States and South Korea can peacefully coexist with a nuclear North Korea. 

At this Kim Dae-jung Peace Forum, it’s useful to recall seemingly paradoxical advice offered by a fourth-century Roman general: Si vis pacem, para bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

This Roman-era aphorism has come to mean that if you face an aggressive adversary, build your military strength so that the adversary knows that, if it launches an attack, it will receive a punishing response — and will therefore be discouraged from pursuing such an attack. The idea of achieving peace by preparing for war has been a critical foundation of security strategies for many centuries. Today we call it “deterrence.”

Of course, not all countries prepare for war in order to have peace. Some have prepared for war as a prelude to waging war. Hitler built the Nazi war machine to conquer Europe and beyond. But for countries genuinely seeking peace and facing significant security threats from well-armed adversaries, building countervailing military strength has usually been the chosen strategy. They feared that failure to build and maintain adequate deterrent capabilities would signal weakness and might only invite aggression.

The Limits of Deterrence

Deterrence — or peace through strength, as it is sometimes called — has stood the test of time because it is widely believed to have worked. Deterrence of the Soviet Union by the United States and its NATO allies during the Cold War is credited with avoiding a major East-West conflict.

But a strategy of deterrence is not without risks. Strengthening defenses to deter an adversary may be interpreted by that adversary as an indication of aggressive intent and a serious threat to its own security. It may respond by further building up its own capabilities. The result may be an expensive and destabilizing arms race — one that reinforces mutual antagonisms, perpetuates a state of confrontation and makes resolution of the underlying conflict even more difficult.

In addition, as both sides build up their military capabilities, they may declare policies, test weapon systems or engage in exercises or deployments that the other side views as preparations for the use of force, even preemptive use of nuclear weapons. In such an environment, the risk of armed conflict breaking out as a result of accidents, misperceptions or miscalculations would grow.

Moreover, even if a mutual military buildup does not result in large-scale armed hostilities, it would not necessarily prevent lower-level provocations. Indeed, an aggressor’s belief that it could deter large-scale retaliation could increase its confidence that it could engage in lower-level provocations with impunity.

To avoid war and ultimately achieve peace, deterrence should be accompanied by diplomacy.

During the Cold War, while amassing huge nuclear arsenals to deter each other, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in diplomacy to moderate and stabilize their competition, limit and reduce their nuclear forces, adopt transparency and confidence-building measures to avoid dangerous miscalculations, and in general prevent their competition from getting out of control.

Yes, if you want peace, prepare for war. But also pursue diplomacy.

So, how do these considerations apply to matters of war and peace on the contemporary Korean Peninsula?

North Korea’s Growing Capabilities

Seventy years after the Korean Armistice Agreement, hope for genuine peace on the peninsula continues to fade. In recent years, the security environment has dramatically deteriorated. The primary cause of increased tension and instability has been North Korea’s relentless efforts to expand and diversify its nuclear and missile capabilities.

Under Kim Jong Un, this rapidly growing nuclear arsenal has been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric toward Seoul and Washington, including the North’s often-declared willingness to use nuclear weapons preemptively .

What is Kim’s motivation for his aggressive nuclear posture? Is it essentially defensive — to ensure the survival of his regime from foreign interference or attack? Or is it essentially offensive — to intimidate and coerce South Korea and reunify the peninsula under Pyongyang’s control? Of course, we don’t know. We can only speculate.

North Korea’s initial motivation for pursuing nuclear weapons may well have been defensive — to deter what it perceived as foreign, mainly U.S., efforts to undermine or eliminate its regime. But whatever its initial motivation, Kim may now feel emboldened by his increased capabilities to pursue more offensive objectives.

Many observers doubt that Kim sees reunification of the peninsula by force as a realistic possibility. But he may now feel he can dominate inter-Korean relations, drive wedges in the U.S.-South Korean alliance and engage in increasingly aggressive provocations. And he may become dangerously overconfident in his ability to control the risks of escalation.

South Korea and the United States have become increasingly alarmed by the growing threat from North Korea. South Korean concerns have been magnified by uncertainty about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees.

U.S.-South Korea Response: Prioritizing Deterrence

The main allied response to the North Korean threat has been to boost their collective deterrent capabilities.

At the highest political levels, the administrations of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and U.S. President Joe Biden have worked together closely to demonstrate strong alliance solidarity and resolve. Seoul has augmented its own conventional capabilities, including its  three-axis strategy . South Korea and the United States have taken significant steps to reinforce the credibility of the United States’ extended nuclear deterrent and to give South Korea a more prominent role in the planning and execution of that deterrent — most notably in the  Washington Declaration adopted during Yoon’s state visit to Washington in April. And together with Japan, the allies have boosted trilateral defense cooperation in unprecedented ways, as agreed at the Camp David summit in August 2023.

While prioritizing deterrence, the allies have also sought diplomatic engagement — reaching out repeatedly to Pyongyang to begin talks . But all those initiatives were rebuffed by the North.

In the absence of diplomacy, the situation is becoming more dangerous. North Korea continues to advance its threatening capabilities. The allies continue to strengthen their deterrent — with large-scale, live-fire joint defense drills and high-profile visits of U.S. strategic assets, including a port visit by a U.S. ballistic missile submarine. Pyongyang, in turn, condemns those allied efforts, which it claims are preparations for attacking the North. It says those efforts justify the further acceleration of its own programs and even its preemptive nuclear doctrine.

Risk Reduction: The Most Immediate Objective

What can be done to break this downward spiral? It may be time for a renewed push for diplomacy. But to get talks underway, a somewhat different approach may be required.

I believe the major reason Kim has so far rejected engagement has been his desire to avoid talks that might interfere with the completion of his ambitious five-year plan to develop and test key nuclear and missile capabilities.

But another reason may be what Washington and Seoul declare must be the focus of any negotiation — namely, the North’s complete denuclearization. Kim has made it clear that he has no intention of eliminating what he regards as essential to the survival of his regime. He says repeatedly that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is irreversible and nonnegotiable .

If Pyongyang eventually gets rid of its nuclear weapons, it will be the result of either a fundamental transformation of the current regime’s policies and values or its collapse.

Neither outcome can be dismissed altogether, especially the regime’s eventual collapse. But we can’t count on either one, at least not in the near term. Realistically, we will have to live with North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.

The United States and its allies can’t accept the North as a legitimate nuclear-armed country. It acquired nuclear weapons illegally and deceitfully. Accepting its nuclear capability would set a dangerous precedent that is damaging to the global nonproliferation regime.

The United States and its allies should continue to adhere to the ultimate goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But for now, they should focus on the most immediate threat — the risk of intentional or inadvertent armed conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level.

The United States and South Korea should therefore approach North Korea and propose setting aside denuclearization for the time being and focusing instead on a risk reduction agenda — primarily confidence-building, transparency and communications measures that can enhance predictability and reduce the risks of armed conflict resulting from accident, misperception or miscalculation. Negotiations could take place bilaterally, trilaterally or in a multilateral regional format, perhaps involving the countries that participated in the Six-Party Talks.

Participants might be required to reaffirm the goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula — a goal Kim supported in the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement  — although participants would presumably continue to differ on the conditions that would make the attainment of that goal possible.

The risk-reduction measures that might be considered in such talks could include:

• prenotification of flight tests of several categories of missiles
• prenotification of land, sea and air military exercises meeting certain agreed-upon criteria
• avoidance of military activities in specified geographic areas (for example, no-fly zones or maritime buffer zones)
• the establishment of routine and crisis communications channels
• the resurrection of several confidence-building steps contained in the moribund North-South Comprehensive Military Agreement
• the adoption of so-called rules of the road to prevent provocative cyber activities
• the toning down of inflammatory rhetoric (including threats to use nuclear weapons preemptively or to launch decapitation strikes against an adversary’s leadership)
• the creation of what might be called “risk-reduction dialogues” where civilian and military officials would meet regularly to raise concerns about another country’s military activities and seek measures to address those concerns

Such risk reduction measures would not bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. Neither would they ensure progress toward denuclearization or remove the need for current U.S. and South Korean efforts to strengthen deterrence and maintain allied military readiness.

Moreover, North Korea’s willingness to engage on risk-reduction measures is far from certain. It may believe that maintaining risks at a high level serves its interests by discouraging the United States and its allies from conducting military activities that could increase the likelihood of conflict. Or it may decide to engage but condition its support for risk-reduction measures on unacceptable concessions from the allies.

Still, in light of the huge stakes, it is worth a try. Risk-reduction measures along these lines — together with a determined allied effort to reinforce deterrence — could help arrest or even reverse the current downward spiral on the peninsula. They could reduce each side’s incentives for pursuing an open-ended arms competition. Perhaps most importantly, they could help alleviate one of the most acute threats on the peninsula today — the risk of inadvertent armed conflict that could escalate to nuclear war.

And if faithfully implemented, such measures could reduce tensions, build habits of constructive engagement, pave the way for practical steps to reduce the North Korean nuclear threat and at least keep alive the hope, however remote today, of a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula living in peace.

“If you want peace, prepare for war.” There’s much truth in that age-old advice. Deterrence may well be a necessary condition for achieving peace — or at least avoiding war.

But it’s only a partial truth. Deterrence may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient. It must be accompanied by diplomacy. And there’s an increasingly urgent need for diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula — diplomacy with realistically achievable and critically important goals.

This is a lightly edited version of Robert Einhorn’s remarks to the 2023 Kim Dae-jung Peace Forum on October 6, 2023, in Mokpo, South Korea.

Robert Einhorn is a senior fellow at the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology of the Brookings Institution.

Related Publications

Three Conditions for Successful Engagement with North Korea

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Mark Tokola

The September 13, 2023, meeting between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in Russia’s Amur Oblast marked a significant crippling of the decades-long U.S. pressure-based approach toward North Korea. The strategy of isolating and pressuring North Korea through United Nations Security Council resolutions to compel its nuclear disarmament in exchange for providing normalized relations, economic aid and sanctions relief may or may not ever have been a winning strategy, but now is no longer viable. The strategy required cooperation among the United States, South Korea, China and Russia, but this now seems a distant prospect.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Building Trust through Health Cooperation with North Korea

Monday, March 18, 2024

By: Kee B. Park

The United States needs to address the existing trust deficit with North Korea if it wants to coexist peacefully with that country. Trust building through health cooperation may be the least contentious way politically and the most likely to succeed. However, engagement on health and humanitarian assistance with North Korea, like security negotiations, has been undermined by geopolitics.

Climate Change as a Path to Engagement with North Korea

Monday, March 11, 2024

By: Troy Stangarone

Since North Korea broke off talks with the United States after their 2019 meeting in Stockholm, progress in engaging Pyongyang on its nuclear weapons and other issues has stalled. The pandemic likely played a significant role in cooling engagement, but Pyongyang’s growing relationship with Russia has further reduced its incentives to engage with the United States.

Increasing Stability in a Deterrence Relationship with North Korea

Monday, March 4, 2024

By: Adam Mount

A Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons remains a critical U.S. national security interest, but it is now a long-term interest. Because there is little possibility of disarming the regime in Pyongyang at an acceptable cost in the foreseeable future, the United States-South Korea alliance needs a strategy to coexist peacefully with a nuclear-armed North Korea.

War and Peace in Modern World Essay

Introduction.

In our world of ever-increasing number of innovations and informational technologies there is hardly a problem which cannot be solved. The scientists are working out the medicines which can cure even AIDs and cancer, regardless the fact that the diseases which were considered fatal a couple of decades ago can be easily cured now. The world has developed a global network for communication and each day offers new inventions in which our ancestors would never believe in if in their times they heard that something like this would ever be possible to invent. Nevertheless, there remains one big problem the modern society seems to be unable to deal with. Every day we continue to listen to news reports about numerous cases of violence, crimes, natural disasters and wars, which in some parts of the world have lasted over the years and seem to never stop. At this, the reasons of the wars are in fact insignificant and seem to be not serious enough for starting something as terrible as a war. No matter how strange and unfair it may seem, but innocent people give their lives for a miserable strip of land which two governments of the belligerent countries are unable to share or because of the desire of one country to prove that it is more powerful than any other. And here the question arises: When will people all over the world stop wars and finally understand that wars and international conflicts are just a mere waste of money and, what is the most important, of human lives? Is that strip of land worth those losses and sufferings of innocent people involved in wars because of misunderstandings and inability to settle the governmental matters peacefully? Living in peace and prosperity is possible but a lot has to be done in order to achieve peaceful coexistence of different countries and their people in this small world which cannot function properly because of something people missed when forming their society.

First of all, people should admit that it is because of each of them that this world cannot become perfect and agree to introduce some changes into their lives. Everything depends on people and their desire to live peacefully: “Attempting to achieve world peace would mean that the people in this world would have to be willing to make some minor changes in the way we govern ourselves on this earth. Common sense should tell us that the best way to put an end to wars or military conflicts is to create a fully civilized world.” (Jim Des Rocher, 7). It should be admitted that a lot here depends on the government of each country because it is namely governments together with the world leaders who are responsible for wars and international conflict. Constant fighting for power and deciding who is the strongest and who should rule this world leads to what we have now and what will be very difficult to change. It should be realized that not only people of each country should become civilized but the governments as well because welfare of the whole world rather than of separate countries is at stake and with each day the risk of the world to get consumed with uncontrolled violence is increasing. Creating a civilized society will help in achieving world peace and proving to each other that living peacefully in prosperity is not only possible to achieve but is easy to maintain once the desired is already attained: “Civilized countries settle their disputes peacefully. Once you have established a civilized world the chances for military conflicts goes away.” (Jim Des Rocher, 33).

Second, to mention but not less important on the way of achieving world peace is bringing up of such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness each of which is necessary for proper functioning of a society. It is striking how brutal and hard-hearted the people of our generation became. Everybody is obsessed with money and is ready to hurt and kill the others in order to gain more money, get promoted or achieve something in this life. Most of people do not care about the others and stopped helping each other though mutual readiness has always been the basis of a successful and prospering society. If mutual assistance becomes a part of each person’s life it will be a grain of mustard seed on the way of achieving world peace. It is also necessary for justice to rule the world for everybody to get proper punishment and for all people to live in fair conditions: “Peace seems to conflict with justice; the one deletes the past, the other acts on it” (Martin Ramirez, 65). Justice should be an integral part of each society for its members to feel secured and to know that their misdeeds will be punished. And as for mutual forgiveness, this noble quality will help make the world understanding and sensible. Learning to forgive should be a part of each person’s life as only being able to forgive the others one can earn a chance to be forgiven: “To seek peace through forgiveness is a life’s program, and it is a worthwhile risk even to the extent of heroism. But one cannot forget that forgiveness also has its own demands: truth (recognition of the crime) and justice (reparation), together with the guarantee that it will not be repeated.” (Martin Ramirez, 65).

And the final important factor directly influencing the world peace is religion. There exist three main religions in this world and supporters of each of them believe that only their religion is the only true one whereas the rest do not have any right for existence. Religion matters have always caused conflicts and to fight this problem is senseless that’s why one has just to face the reality. Modern society does not make tries to introduce a single religion or to abolish religion as such because the history proved that it will get back to the society as it is an essential part of it. Religion gives people hope for the best and turning to God for help they believe sincerely that everything possible will be done in order to make their lives better. World peace depends on the peace of society thus on the peace of each person. If chaos rules the world not a single person will find peace in him and vice versa. The task of people is to support faith in each other and never to let troubles weaken their faith because if the religion won’t be practiced world peace will be out of the question. Religion makes people intelligent and understanding, well-disposed, noble and generous. Without religion they will become aggressive, arrogant, self-centered and this will cause conflicts all around the world. This is why religion should be freely and widely practised in order to make all people believe that if they treat each other well, if they support each other and do not forget about morality they make a contribution into a difficult but rewarding process of achieving world peace and prosperity.

To sum it up, the modern world full of violence and brutality, ruled by those who being in constant pursuit of power use innocent people to prove that their country is the strongest badly needs some improvements because now it is in danger of collapse and each day is being destroyed by people who live in it. To achieve world peace and prosperity seems impossible but just as a lot of other great deeds what it requires is time, efforts and strong desire to change the life of every person for better. It is possible to make this world better even if not perfect and keys to this are the building of a civilized society where both people and government will be civilized, the desire of each person to eradicate his/her shortcomings by trying to develop such qualities as compassion, justice and mutual forgiveness. On top of this all stands the religion which irrespective of its kind keeps people united and gives them hope for the best. Provided that all these points are taken into consideration and put into life the necessary result will be achieved and our world spoiled by money and power will turn into what every person dreams about – a world with no sufferings and grief where people care about each other and are not afraid for their future.

Jim Des Rocher. (2004). How to Achieve World Peace: The Second Greatest Book Ever Written. Trafford Publishing.

J. Martin Ramirez. (2007). Peace Through Dialogue. International Journal on World Peace, 24 (1), 65.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 23). War and Peace in Modern World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/

"War and Peace in Modern World." IvyPanda , 23 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'War and Peace in Modern World'. 23 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "War and Peace in Modern World." October 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-peace-in-modern-world/.

• Self-Forgiveness: The Step Child of Forgiveness Research
• Tzintzuntzan - Can People Who Participate in Different Churches Get Along Peacefully?
• Christ's Atonement and the Concept of Forgiveness
• The Amish Philosophy of Forgiveness
• Self-Forgiveness as the Path to Learning to Forgive the Others
• Forgiveness in Simon Wiesenthal’s Work The Sunflower
• "The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony" and "Can China Rise Peacefully?" by Mearsheimer
• Forgiveness and Reconciliation Critique
• Forgiveness in the Christian Texts and the World Today
• Aztec: Barbaric or Civilized
• Chinese Politics: Winner and Losers
• Humanities. Diversity in "Forrest Gump" Movie
• Sociology: Prejudice and Discrimination in India
• Clark and Clark Doll Experiment Revisited
• Class-Based Health Inequalities in Australia

Essay on War and Peace

No doubt war is an evil, the greatest catastrophe that befalls human beings. It brings death and destruction, disease and starvation, poverty, and ruin in its wake.

One has only to look back to the havoc that was wrought in various countries not many years ago, in order to estimate the destructive effects of war. A particularly disturbing side of modern wars is that they tend to become global so that they may engulf the entire world.

But there are people who consider war as something grand and heroic and regard it as something that brings out the best in men, but this does not alter the fact that war is a terrible, dreadful calamity.

This is especially so now that a war will now be fought with atom bombs. Some people say war is necessary. A glance at the past history will tell that war has been a recurrent phenomenon in the history of nation.

No period in world history has been the devastating effects of war. We have had wars of all types long and short. In view of this it seems futile to talk of permanent and everlasting peace or to make plans for the establishment of eternal peace.

We have had advocates of non violence and the theory of the brotherhood of man. We have had the Buddha, Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. But in spite of that, weapons have always been used, military force has always been employed, clashes of arms have always occurred; war has always been waged.

War has indeed been such a marked feature of every age and period that it has come to be regarded As part of the normal life of nations. Machiavelli, the author of the known book, The Prince, defined peace as an interval between two wars Molise, the famous German field marshal declared war to be part of God’s world order.

Poets and prophets have dreamt of a millennium, a utopia in which war will not exist and eternal peace will reign on earth. But these dreams have not been fulfilled. After the Great War of 1914-18, it was thought that there would be no war for a long time to come and an institution called the League of Nations was founded as a safeguard against the outbreak of war.

The occurrence of another war (1939-45), however, conclusively proved that to think of an unbroken peace is to be unrealistic And that no institution or assembly can ever ensure the permanence of peace.

The League of Nations collapsed completely under the tensions and stresses created by Hitler. The United Nations Organization with all the good work that It has been doing is not proving as effective as was desired.

Large numbers of Wars, the most recent ones being the one in Vietnam, the other between India and Pakistan, or indo-china War, Iran-Iraq war or Arab Israel war, have been fought despite the UN. The fact of the matter is that fighting in a natural instinct in man.

When individuals cannot live always in peace, it is, indeed, too much to expect so many nations to live in a state of Eternal peace. Besides, there will always be wide differences of opinion between various nation, different angles of looking at matters that have international importance, radical difference in policy and ideology and these cannot be settled by mere discussions.

So resort to war becomes necessary in such circumstances. Before the outbreak of World War II, for instance, the spread of Communism in Russia created distrust and suspicion in Europe, democracy was an eyesore to Nazi Germany, British Conservatives were apprehensive of the possibility of Britain going Communist.

In short, the political ideology of one country being abhorrent to other times were certainly not conducive to the continuance of peace. Add to all this the traditional enemities between nations and international disharmony that have their roots in past history.

For example, Germany wished to avenge the humiliating terms imposed upon her at the conclusion of the war of 1914-18 and desired to smash the British Empire and establish an empire of her own. Past wounds, in fact, were not healed up and goaded it to take revenge.

A feverish arms race was going on between the hostile nations in anticipation of such an eventuality, and disarmament efforts were proving futile. The Indo-Pakistan war was fought over the Kashmir issue.

The war in Vietnam Was due to ideological differences. It also appears that if peace were to continue for a long period, people would become sick of the monotony of life and would seek war for a changed man is a highly dynamic creature and it seems that he cannot remain contented merely with works of peace-the cultivation of arts, the development of material comforts, the extension of knowledge, the means and appliances of a happy life.

He wants something thrilling and full of excitement and he fights in order to get an outlet for his accumulated energy. It must be admitted, too, that war Has its good side. It spurs men to heroism and self-sacrifice. It is an incentive to scientific research and development. War is obviously an escape from the lethargy of peace.

Related Posts:

• Stri Purush Tulana by Tarabai Shinde Analysis
• Random Occupation Generator
• Random Phrase Generator [English]
• Random Ability Generator Pokemon
• Lady Of Shalott Poem By Alfred Lord Tennyson Summary, Notes And Line By Line Analysis In English
• Random Disease Generator [Fake & Real]