What does it mean to “win” a war in the 21st century? Today’s weapons bring suffering, carnage, death and destruction regardless of side. Chemical weapons are seeing a resurgence in the Russia-Ukraine war, and threats of nuclear weapon use are on the rise. AI-controlled weapons are coming. Widespread death is all but guaranteed unless humans find civil ways to work out cross-national differences.
The notion of there being a “winner” in war is particularly irksome in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Hamas fighters launched a sadistic attack on Israel and its people last fall, and Israel has struck back with a vengeance against Gaza and the Palestinian people since. Tens of thousands have died, and hundreds of thousands suffer. Gaza is all but destroyed. Is Israel winning?
Consider the huge costs of this war in precious human lives, lasting traumatic stress, monetary and other resources, and the environment. Other nations have invested heavily in their chosen side. What about this mass destruction constitutes a positive return on these investments? Increased security? Improved quality of life? Enhanced trade? Hardly.
I see no winners to celebrate in this; only many losers. What will it take for humans to embrace civilized ways to solve our conflicts? Must we keep repeating the war-peace cycle until our ever-sophisticated weapons destroy us all? These and similar questions keep me up at night.
Tom Meuser
Portland
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
