War has existed at least as long as written history. Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, in War Before Civilization, claims that 90-95% of known human societies have engaged in organised warfare. Some historians take the opposite stance arguing the lack of clear evidence for organised war in our prehistoric past. What is puzzling that many peaceful, non-military societies have existed throughout human history and still exist (See Otterbein, Keith, 2004, How War Began. Texas A&M University Press).
There are two contradictory views in the peace-war debate: (1) prehistoric & primitive peoples were more peaceful than modern humans, & (2) premodern peoples were more warlike. On the whole, evidence points to a midway stance as warfare among primates, prehistoric people, early agriculturists, & primitive people have been influenced by contextual conditions, e.g., power structures, military organization, and whether coercive diplomacy worked or not.
Peace Studies (also called Irenology, derived from the Greek word for peace, eirini) is an inter-disciplinary effort aiming at the prevention, de-escalation, and resolution of conflicts. War studies; on the other hand (also known as Polemology, derived from the Greek word for war, Poleimos) aims at the efficient attainment of victory in conflicts. The definition of "peace" varies among cultures, religions, and time periods, and there are many theories. In Gandhi's vision of peace justice is an inherent and necessary aspect. For him peace requires the presence of functioning justice in addition to an absence of violence. Martin Luther King was of a similar mind when saying that "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
Contemporary political leaders are so eager to talk about peace that they should start resembling doves with honorary doctorates in Irenology. This behaviour is totally in contrast to leaders from the past. In the absence of a media climate like nowadays, leaders of past superpowers like Egypt, Assyria or Rome could afford to be brutally honest about their intentions in killing more efficiently. The Persians, the Assyrians, the Hebrews, the Egyptians all castrated their vanquished enemies with public ceremonies in order to demoralize and deter enemies. The Egyptian Pharaoh Meneptah proudly claims that in 1300 B.C.E., he had 13,230 penises cut off from the soldiers of an invading Libyan army (with six of those phalli belonging to generals). In the ancient days the threat of violence was the prime method of ensuring that one's territory was not invaded, and the people were not robbed or raped by others. This threat had to be renewed constantly with fresh examples of gruesome acts.
Throughout history, we have seen how the greatest innovations are driven by military requirements. This usually means killing more effectively than the enemy at minimal costs. If we think about radar, submarines even the Internet, just to mention a few inventions, they all have origins in the defence industries. The majority of innovative technology on the planet today is somehow connected to inventions driven by the imperatives of war.
From the currently ongoing wars, we can see that technology advances protect only soldiers and not civilians. The percentage of civilians killed in WWI was 5% of total casualties. In WWII it was 65%. In Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian casualties increased to 90% of all casualties (from Lancet estimate to Iraq Body Count). Advancements in military technology only save the lives of high-tech army soldiers, rather than civilians. In spite of all the talk on the political stage about saving lives, surgical precision in weapons usage and ensuring democratic values etc, the opposite seems to take place.
Mainstream media all over the world hardly criticizes the efficacy of war as a means of achieving peace as politicians starting wars claim. Even in functioning democracies, which are proud of their "freedom of speech" or "way of life" people take it for granted that war conducted by their governments are justified. Hardly anyone flinches at news items "35 terrorists killed," or "NATO soldiers kill 45 extremists". Like sheep, we buy the justifications given by our own and allied governments. It is comfortable for us to assume, against all historical data that governments do lie, corrupt the public trust and serve special interest groups in differing degrees in every human society.
Now, should soldiers from high-tech armies kill more efficiently? Hawkish leaders who advocate the doctrine of "just war" claim yes. Moral theologians, ethicists, and international policy makers claim that a conflict can and should meet the criteria of philosophical, religious, or political justice, but under certain pre-specified conditions.
