The Art Of Peace - Changing The Face Of War
Machiavelli said that war can only be delayed at one's expense or advantage, but it cannot be avoided. Of course the author of The Prince lived not only in a time of great renaissance, but also one of unspeakable violence.
From the various inquisitions to various religious crusades, and occupying campaigns, society's appetite for violence and war has been great. Before, and since the time of Nicolo Machiavelli we have waged war with much diligence, and fervour.
However, despite the fact that we have a greater capacity to cause death and destruction like no other time in history, things are getting more peaceful, and not only that, the nature of peace itself is changing.
The Function Of War
My daughter once asked me a very interesting question, she asked; daddy, when was the first ever war? I didn't know the answer, so I consulted the Grand Wizard Google, who informed me that the first recorded war took place in Mesopotamia (Iraq) in 2700 BCE between Sumer and Elam . . .
What will be of no surprise to you, as it wasn't to me, was that the reasons for war have remained fairly constant. Wars are waged so that nations may have an advantage of resources over their rivals.
Hence wars are fought for fertile land, oil, precious metals, and many more.
What is in fact interesting as we look back at these historical conflicts, is to notice that it isn't the nature of war which is changing, but rather the anatomy of peace.
What we mean by peace today, is very different to what was meant by it in yesteryear. For example, in 1930 peace between Germany and France meant, the two nations are not at war at the moment, however it is possible.
If we go back to medieval England, when people said there is peace between England and France, or Spain and Portugal, they too meant the same thing as above. They are at peace now, however that could change.
Today when we say there is peace between America and Germany, we mean there is no conceivable situation in which those two nations would ever be at war.
Even if we choose two nations that are militarily matched, say Sweden and Denmark. There is absolutely no scenario in which we can imagine those two nations ever going to war with each other.
What's In A Resource?
Perhaps the nature of peace has changed because what we might call a resource has also metamorphosed into something quite different.
Natural resources used to encompass all the things mentioned above, from oil to minerals. However in the 21st century things aren't so cut and dried. Today we can count software, and digital infrastructure as a natural resource.
It would make no sense for China to invade Japan to try and grab the intellectual property rights surrounding its cameras or video game consoles. More rather it tries to gain control of these things via economic tactics, rather than military ones.
Thus we are in a situation whereby China would have much more to lose, via business collaborations, than it would ever gain by going to war with Japan, even though in military terms they could crush them.
The Changing Face Of War
So whilst conventional war is becoming a less viable option, the base reason we go to war still exists. That is; my group is better than your group, and I want my group to be stronger than yours.
Today wars can be raged in cyberspace without the knowledge of anyone but the main protagonists. Corporate and government sponsored malware traded between nations who are at peace, is used in place of bombs and soldiers.
For as long as humans have anything to do with it, some of us will not be able to rest until we dominate our rivals, it is what drives us ever onward.
To that respect, maybe Nicolo Machiavelli was right after all;
War cannot be avoided, merely deferred.
Cryptogee Musings Table Of Contents - #1
THIS MUSING WAS IN PART INSPIRED BY COMMENTS MADE BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THE @QUILLFIRE FOR THE PEOPLE ARTICLE. SO PLEASE VISIT THAT LINK AND CHECK THE COMMENT SECTION FOR MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUBJECTS OF WAR AND THE LAW (ORIGINAL FOCUS OF ARTICLE)
I'M STILL MULLING OVER THIS SUBJECT, HOWEVER FOR NOW I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT MODERN WARFARE. HAVE THINGS CHANGED, OR IS IT JUST SAME OLD, SAME OLD?
AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW!
I thought that a recent podcast called Destroyer of Worlds by Dan Carlin explained really well the transformation of state and society between the development of the atomic bomb and the Cuban Missle Crisis. Warning, its six hours long, but it does a great job looking at this question from the war side.
In terms of what you claim about peace, I have my hopes that the human spirit is awakening, enlightening to the extent that we realize how important it is to fit in to the natural cycles of peace and abundance. We cannot just be at peace between humans and continue our war on Mother Nature.
This is a great article dear friend. I was a little ill and I missed your amazing post. sorry. The form of war really changed direction. I find it true
first generation war;
human power is used as a whole. is the form of war in which regular armies participate in the conflict in line and arm order. weapons such as machine guns have destroyed this understanding of war.
second generation war;
It is a form of battle based on intense fire power applied in the First World War. although it is quite different from the first generation
It is basically a form of battle carried out through the façade and fixed trenches.
third generation war;
and real-time communications is essential to maneuver. they are wars such as infiltration, spinning, winding around and second world war based on destroying and isolating the enemy in small units.
the world is now confronted with a new generation of understanding of war.
fourth generation war;
this understanding is the asymmetric actions that it applies by taking advantage of the possibilities of advanced technology. the enemy gives messages to the side that it is not possible to achieve the targets. it tries to reach its goals by giving the message that the cost of the struggle is too high.
Hi @artzim,
I hope you are better now! :-)
Thank you for your detailed answer, I particularly like how you describe the 'fourth generation war', especially the bit about the enemy giving messages that the cost of the struggle is too high.
This has got me thinking . . . !
Cg
@cryptogee,
Thank you.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@quillfire/cryptogee-thank-you
Still the same old, same old. We just have much larger clubs now.
My daughter once asked a very interesting question, she asked; Dad, when was the first war? Princess @cryptogee very critical and smart. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
Beautiful paint and good photography
I do enjoy these musings, but this is probably the first one I have had enough of a solid opinion to comment about.
I am going to take the more 'Taoist' view and say that 'war' and 'peace' are equal and opposing forces that shape human interactions, but they work in the same way as all the laws of physicals that form cycles of creation and destruction. Just as all the utopian societies are doomed to fail, I think a peaceful society needs a 'destructive' force to help restore a balance that gets tipped too far in one direction.
I guess the interesting thing is whether it is the same people that are fighting each other or whether the old geo-political boundaries no longer apply and that it is the corporations where the battles are fought. Cyber warfare is just a different theatre of war but with the same opponents and there are still casualties and collateral damage, no different to the outcome of any conflict.
To summarize, I think the same forces are at play and I don't think I understand it well enough to be able to predict the cycles and its permutations, but I don't think human civilization is advanced or significant enough to cause a ripple in the vast oceans of the universe.
This is very interesting - I read The Prince over 15 years ago and lost the copy soon after. What strikes me is that none of the modern wars were fought over resources, they were always fought without any aim to gain resources - they were all humanitarian wars to either free people, bring democracy to people, or to go and find some people that threatened peace and democracy and order. On the point you make about war seeming inconceivable between certain nations, we hold this view because of our related belief that nations don't go to war over resources. Wars are fought because unreasonable tyrants have too much power, and Denmark, Sweden, France, etc, are not ruled by tyrants ever
I don't believe there has been a humanitarian war since WWII, all the so-called humanitarian wars these days are fought under that guise, but in reality, it's all about resource.
Iraq - oil
Afghanistan - gas (pipeline)
Bosnia - gas
This is proven by anytime there is a conflict that brings about a humanitarian crisis in a region of no natural resources, it isn't even reported on the news, let alone anybody going to help.
Cg
You have said it without sarcasm. These days, sarcasm is the haven of those afraid of being called insane - I see I am in the company of those who don't give a damn ;-). The propaganda always leads with a humanitarian goal, and of course, it is a load of hogwash. Imperialists have never gone to war with any aim other than to garner profits.
big salute to the artist. heart touching art & you describe it very well.
I didn't know which war was the first neither, but, yes, since the civilizations of Mesopotamia were the first know ones, it is indeed logical that the first wars happened there too.
I love your description of the peace from the past! 😊
I believe that the meaning of peace (between economically and culturally developed nations) has changed because they now all have devastating weapons, immense economic connections, as well as a huge potential war weariness for wars with similar/friendly nations.
Thus, I think that the war between U.S. and Germany is not unimaginable due to politicians or evolved human nature, but because of the pure interests of both countries. Which is logical when considered that the overall external politics are more and more lead by interests instead of tradition or emotions.
Cheers! : )