Point is well made.
But it is not necessarily so.
Few years ago, I was reading a book "War! What is it good for?" Author Ian Morris, tries to explain the paradox of war.
I cannot give any better summary, then it is actually given on amazon. I will quote.
In War! What Is It Good For?, the renowned historian and archaeologist Ian Morris tells the gruesome, gripping story of fifteen thousand years of war, going beyond the battles and brutality to reveal what war has really done to and for the world. Stone Age people lived in small, feuding societies and stood a one-in-ten or even one-in-five chance of dying violently. In the twentieth century, by contrast―despite two world wars, Hiroshima, and the Holocaust―fewer than one person in a hundred died violently. The explanation: War, and war alone, has created bigger, more complex societies, ruled by governments that have stamped out internal violence. Strangely enough, killing has made the world safer, and the safety it has produced has allowed people to make the world richer too.
War has been history's greatest paradox, but this searching study of fifteen thousand years of violence suggests that the next half century is going to be the most dangerous of all time. If we can survive it, the age-old dream of ending war may yet come to pass. But, Morris argues, only if we understand what war has been good for can we know where it will take us next.
End of qoute
Wars created large states. States control internal violence, and we live in relatively safer environment.
This then brings me to the vision that Eisnehowers shared in his speech, and I qouted above.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Entire Eisnehowers generation (inlcuding other countries leaders) have participated in world war 2, and have seen horrors of industrial warfare, burned cities and destroyed Europe and other places. All of the ww2 leaders of that time had their family members serving the Army as well, and have good understanding of consequences of their individual decisions in war, by death and destruction and personal family risks,
(Roosevelt son, served army, both Kennedys sons, one future president served army, Marshall Tito was actually firing personally at enemy, his son wounded and lost arm in eastern front, Churchill son served army, and was part of British mission in Balkans - being shot at, even dictator such as Stalin had a son in army that ended up as POW, and Stallin refused to exchange him for captured German Marshall Paulus, I could go on but this was the generation of leaders that we talk about)
This was generation that created post ww2 world order. They wanted something better for mankind
This generation also created the best what they could - United nations organization. (Funny nobody talks about UN, in recent forum discussions)
This I beleive was Eiks vision in the moment of speech in 1961
And I am coming now to conclusion that this vision, as described in Eiks speech has been blurred globally, as this generation has passed away, new generations of leaders came and new challenges arose.
What is happening now, after collapsing of soviet union, and emergence of "modern Russia" and subsequent events are actually establishing new geopolitical spheres of interests of global superpowers.
War in Ukraina will end on negotiation table, and I do hope, when negotiations come that this will make new global stability, otherwise if it spirals out of control it could be too late.
