It's debatable: Will there ever be peace on Earth?

In this week's "It's Debatable" segment, Rick Rosen and Charles Moster contemplate if it's possible for there ever to be peace on Earth. Rosen is the Glenn D. West Endowed Research Professor of Law at the Texas Tech University School of Law and a retired U.S. Army colonel. Moster is founder of the Moster Law Firm based in Lubbock with seven offices including Austin, Dallas, and Houston. 

Moster 1There is a cosmological theory shared by many astronomers as to why there is absolutely no evidence of intelligent life in our observable universe notwithstanding the most sophisticated detection devices – not even a bleep or peep. The pronouncement is that any intelligent society which ultimately develops atomic weapons will commit suicide by destroying itself. This shroud of death is otherwise known as the Great Filter. Admittedly, it sure is dark and quiet out there.

There is certainly substantial evidence that our species is heading fast down the same road. The United States and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to knock out their respective populations and the rest of the world in an hour or less given the incredible speed of delivery systems. Verifiable computer models predict that total deaths in America and Russia would be in the range of 250 million each. Everyone else would perish in the coming days by radiation sickness or starvation attendant to the crash of the environment.

That said, at least so far, neither superpower has unleashed the lethal genie based on the doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction”, or MAD for short. The underlying assumption is that because a nuclear war is unwinnable, neither party will push the “button”. Since the dawn of the nuclear age around 1950, MAD seems to have worked although it has been tested vigorously given Putin’s barbaric attacks on Ukraine and his nuclear saber rattling.

All the world seems to be holding on by the “Skin of Our Teeth”, the brilliant title and play by the mercurial and metaphysical playwright Thornton Wilder, whose tale captured the darker side of human nature and our propensity for death and violence.

Wilder was prophetic as American lived on to enjoy his tragicomedy and make it through the throes of WW-2 and the Cold War. In the same vein, I believe that all of us will miraculously make it through and incredibly turbulent 2022, and then some. The reason for my tempered optimism has nothing to do with the assumption underlying MAD that countries and their leaders are fundamentally rational. Stalin, Hitler, and now Putin have certainly challenged that supposition. Instead, I would bet the Law Firm on the powers of self-preservation and plain old selfishness. Notwithstanding the inflammatory rhetoric by Putin and his minions, he is too invested in his lifestyle – mansions – palaces – mega-yachts, to obliterate his ill-gotten gains in the space of a “60-Minutes” broadcast. He also has three beautiful and highly accomplished daughters who would endlessly prefer the cosmopolitan ambiance of Moscow to the cramped quarters of a fallout shelter.

Bottom Line – I believe that we may escape the finality of the “Great Filter” by the Skin of Our Teeth. Now, whether the absence of global annihilation is the equivalent of “Peace”, is certainly debatable. Rest assured, my debate partner and friend will weigh in on the validity of that equation.

Rosen 1

Will there ever be peace on earth? I think not. History demonstrates that as long as humans occupy this planet there will be war. Charles’ focus is too narrow: avoidance of nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia. I agree this is a central component of world peace (and I pray that Charles is correct), but actual and threatened conflicts span far beyond the sphere of U.S.-Russia relations.

First, with respect to nuclear weapons, the world is no longer bilateral. A growing number of nations are nuclear capable. An increasingly aggressive China is developing an immense nuclear arsenal, which should call for reassessment of U.S. bilateral treaties with Russia that limit our own nuclear deterrence. A rogue state with nuclear weapons like North Korea can start its own nuclear conflagration, including potential strikes against the United States. Despite the Administration’s misguided appeasement efforts, Iran is likely to join the “nuclear club,” and has consistently announced its intent to destroy Israel, which would set off an unimaginably destructive war in the Middle East. India and Pakistan are both nuclear capable, and a clash between them could decimate South Asia.

Second, there are actual and threatened conventional conflicts throughout the world. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s threat to take Taiwan by force are just two examples. Full-scale hostilities between other belligerents (e.g., Israel and Hamas) are always possible. And many nations, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria, suffer from their own internal deadly conflicts.

Third, the world body created to preserve the peace—the United Nations—is largely useless. Its General Assembly is controlled by countries that are undemocratic, unstable, or involved in their own conflicts, and it has an unhealthy practice of concentrating on one country—Israel—in spite of other clashes throughout the world. And when permanent members of the Security Council (like Russia or China) invade their neighbors, there is nothing the UN can do.

Fourth, until all nations “beat their swords into plowshares,” and all the people of the world join hands and sing Kumbaya, our focus should be on what can the United States do to preserve the peace for itself and its friends. The phrases si vis pacem, para bellum (“if you want peace, prepare for war”) and “peace through strength” are particularly apropos. To maintain peace for ourselves and our allies, we must have a credible deterrence that prevents war.

Moster 2

It appears that Rick and I agree that a deterrent capability is necessary to “maintain peace for ourselves and our allies”. Although he views my focus on “MAD” as narrow in a multipolar world where other nations have or likely will acquire nuclear weapons, the same threat of nuclear annihilation remains a steadfast deterrent. North Korea can saber rattle all it wants along with Iran, however, should they dare to launch an attack on the United States we have the capability to destroy their respective nations thousands of times over in the span of a few minutes, particularly with our nuclear submarines. In my view, the precepts of MAD particularly apply to smaller nations with greater deterrent vigor.

The larger question which I will raise myself is whether the absence of major nuclear conflict in any way represents world peace? Unfortunately, it does not but sets the world stage for a Pax Perpetuum, a phrase coined my yours truly – “Perpetual Peace”. To achieve this result, we need to narrow our inquiry even further and that is down to the level of personal human interactions which have always been subject to intense conflict. As Shakespeare brilliantly observed in his masterwork Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”

Primatologists who have studied the behavior of apes and chimpanzees, particularly, Jane Goodall, have highlighted the violent propensity of our evolutionary cousins who share 99% of our genetics. Goodall who originally believed these animals lived in harmony was horrified to learn based on her observations that they engaged in wholesale war and slaughter where their enemies were entirely wiped out, decapitated with glee, and cannibalized. More detailed studies evidence violence directed towards other apes and particularly male on female violence at a rate approaching 90%. Not surprisingly, humans share the same traits which have confirmed the identical behavior with gender violence even more accentuated at 95% or even higher. Males of both species appear to be the instigator of violent acts across the board. Apologies in advance to our male readership!

Although the world may experience the inverse of war in my predicted Pax Perpetuum, true world peace will not come until we control our own genetic destiny. Towards that end, geneticists are on the verge of isolating the precise genes which trigger violent behavior in an effort to develop therapies which will “knockout” the genetic culprits. The scientific focus has been on the genomes of serial murders in an effort to identify the “Rosetta Stone” of human violence and eradicate it once and for all.

The search for the common cause and cure of violence will also be expedited by the rise of the next generation of supercomputers which will utilize laboratory grown neurons to solve problems light years beyond the reach of current digital systems. These “biocomputers” which are also referred to as “wetware” will likely solve the problem of human violence in a matter of seconds and recommend a genetic cure along with its implementation. Of course, the conundrum is whether any of us will ever listen.

My ultimate prediction which will seem farfetched but has been vetted in several books I have written on the subject, is that biocomputers may eventually gain control of our military systems including nuclear weapons. If we don’t impose peace on ourselves, our biocomputers will likely impose it on us.

And therein Pax Perpetuum will truly come to pass.

Rosen 2

I find Charles’ response fascinating; however, after watching movies like War Games in 1983, I do not trust a super-computer to decide our fate. In any event, this is one debate in which I genuinely want to be proven wrong. Nevertheless, I fear that I am right.Interestingly, in my 26 years of active military service, I never once heard a commander or senior officer wish for armed conflict; they knew the death and destruction that war entails. Instead, commanders hoped for peace but prepared their soldiers for war. I am not sure I can say the same about all of our political leaders. More importantly, the political and military leaders of a number of nations have a completely different moral compass and do not share the same aversion to armed conflict. Assuming genetic redesign could work, that is the weakness of Charles’ proposal. If only the people of some countries undergo “treatment,” they would be at the mercy of those who do not. Charles notes “the conundrum is whether any of us will ever listen.” I believe a larger problem is what if only some listen.

The triggers for both international and internal conflicts have multiplied in recent years, from famine and energy shortages caused by natural forces and misguided governmental policies to the desire of some nations to eliminate their neighbors. Even if possible, I do not think that genetic redesign will be able to bring peace on earth within the foreseeable future. In 1965, American satirist Tom Lehrer performed a song called National Brotherhood Week, which states in part: “All of my folks hate all of your folks, [i]t’s American as apple pie,” and “To hate all but the right folks [i]s an old established rule.” Unfortunately, I believe that Mr. Lehrer’s lyrics apply worldwide as well as domestically. Intractable political and ideological discord exists throughout the world.

Perhaps we can employ the guidance from that famous 23rd -Century military philosopher Captain James T. Kirk, commander of the Starship Enterprise, who said in the 1967 episode A Taste of Armageddon: “We’re human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it! We can admit that we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes … knowing that we’re not going to kill today.”

I wish all a peaceful holiday season.

This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: It's debatable: Will there ever be peace on Earth?