War, whether it be the World Wars, Vietnam War, or the American Revolution, has always been a nearly perfect gauge for measuring and showcasing an era’s most developed science and technology. War has also proven to be one of the world’s best catalysts for scientific and technological innovation. And yet, can the culmination of these technological advancements aid us in preventing future wars? I argue up to an extent. Our unruly past has led us to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), so many that they would all but cause our mutually assured destruction (MAD) if they are to be used. Because these weapons are such a threat to not only the life of an enemy of a war, but to all life, they do in fact indirectly act as a deterrent for conflict.
Whether this was their purpose or not, a war on the scale of the World Wars has been avoided (narrowly) for many decades. However, is this an effective and long lasting solution? I argue that it is not. Albert Einstein famously said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Humans are inherently chaotic and emotional beings. Conflict can never be avoided indefinitely. Einstein insinuates that more World Wars are inevitable, and references the effectiveness and devastating capacity of the weapons we have created today. He expressed that all of our technological advancements have ironically brought the modern world to its tipping point, and gives us the potential to devolve modern civilization into the dark ages. Thus, while nuclear deterrents have prevented larger and devastating conflicts, it is not necessarily a long term solution.
While there are policies that regulate science and technology, such as the code of ethics, people are curious. As we have discussed previously, science is a fluid concept. Whether accidental or intentional, these policies will be pushed and broken eventually, causing the ethics and morality towards science and technology to shift, or a paradigm shift. As we have seen in our history, these discoveries have also often caused war. For example, the invention of the gas powered engine in the 19th century caused a scramble for the resource of oil, which arguably eventually led to war in the Middle East in the recent decades. Thus, these policies too are arguably a short term solution to a long term issue.
Like I previously stated, people are inherently emotional beings that seek peace almost as much as they seek conflict. The human condition is a double edged sword. Thus, as long as we’re human; have emotions; desires, aspirations, anger, morality, there will be conflict. It is undoubtedly inevitable. The stark reality and irony is that while science and technology has played a large role in preventing conflict up to this point, such as these nuclear deterrents, it is those same things that will probably cause future wars as well. The state of the world today is quite fragile with climate change, forest fires, suspicious world leaders and racial tensions. Conflict can be started anywhere, all it takes is a little spark of collective human emotion to start a war. Thus, I think that Science and technology cannot help prevent future wars, but can help push them back. Yet, have we reached our limit and capacity for peace? We can only hope.