The Science Of Peace | Founders' Review Editorial

Alexandros, the Greek leader, reached Gordion as moving forward to the East. The town was famous for the Gordion Knot. It claimed, whoever solves it, will be the leader of the world known that time. Alexandros cut it with his sword and advanced. However, there is a better answer. You just ignore it. Whoever comes after you will waste time with it, and you won’t look overly aggressive to the rest. War comes with casualties, if you do not want casualties, do not do wars.

Link of the day.
Need to outsource development? Sonar

Animals rarely kill other animals from the same species. Why do we do wars then? The reason I believe is the following. One reason we became smarter is that we started to live in tribes as opposed to hunting alone. We needed brain power for social skills. This made us more powerful than other animals in the same habitat. However, as tribes grow resources become scarce. This triggers fear. Fear activates the anger center of our brains, so that we are more easily turned against our tribe or other tribes. You can see this by exploring the crime rates of big cities compared to rural towns. Evolution favored tribes that could organize themselves better. First they could move to the habitat of other tribes, next they could form alliances and trade resources to handle the increased population.

Later, people made tools to hunt and used them against each other as well. Countries lost about 5% of their population in WW1 and some lost about 10% of their population in WW2. These were the scale that the British Empire with its mighty 400M headcount could have colonized Western Europe, if the killing continues. Small clubs of powerful generals notice such weakness. This was already the scale, when using tools just does not make sense. Just imagine a soldier in WW1 in the cold, heavy rain in constant shelling. Once they are at the front line it is almost certain death. They may not even notice whether someone approaching is an enemy or a friend. Those who survived might have wondered, what is the point using the products of industrialization. They could just play the game face to face with the same impact and go home. In fact, they might have thought that their soul mates are the soldiers in the other hole and the enemies are the industrial companies becoming rich on these weapons. It is not a surprise that there were so many friendships built in the East at the end of WW1 or that people rose against those enterprises in WW2. It is probably a better idea to let disappointed veterans of wars like WWI move to another state and continent, and just do business there. They are burden on the state that can never pay back a reasonable price for their service.

However, life goes on, and we will soon approach a population of 10B proving that the act was pointless. It is unlikely that wars will stop. I noticed a few basic rules that apply to computer hacking or competitive industries as well.

First of all, countries build up armies and weapons. You will make as many weapons as enemies you have. If you do not have many enemies, you won’t have a big army. What happens if you are conquered? Since you did not have enemies, you will have friends and eventually someone will help you out, or you solve it yourself. The only condition is that it has to be transparent that you were conquered by force. This means that those who build up weapons will likely do so to attack first. There is a caveat. The US has half of the striking power of the world. The reason is its promise to its many allies, in which case NATO has to play the role of the attacker, if one of them is conquered.

This is especially true in the world of nuclear weapons. As time goes by, every technology becomes cheaper. There are way more countries with these weapons today than 50 years ago. It is just a risk to have them handy. If you can make them in a few months, when you need them, you have time to consider whether to use them at all. If you are conquered and the case is outrageous would not another power give a hand later in history? It is dangerous stuff, it is better to have as little of them as possible.

Second, there is always uncertainty. Uncertainty is risk. If there is no transparency of the striking power of the other player, then people tend to build up more weapons. If this is the case the possibilities increase that a war is started. Building up attacking weapons cannot be justified financially in the long run unless they are used. This is the lesson of the wars in Korea, and Vietnam. Bigger transparency between competitors reduces the chances of conflict. It is said that people follow the famous rule that there is no victory without risk. The truth is that there is no defeat without risk. If you know what you are doing, you know the situation, you are smart, you will win. War comes with casualties, if you do not want casualties, do not do wars.

Third, there are way more secret services these days than before. They are above the law. In fact democracies sometimes opt for buying these services from local criminals to stay in the background. Oftentimes criminals get help for information to such agencies. The result is anarchy. Software and malware is cheap to duplicate. Secret services may keep the failures of their employees in secret. How could I assess a government and vote in favor or against it, if its actions are kept from me? Democratic governments should not keep back anything longer than the period of an election otherwise they are not democratic I believe. This suggests that transparently paying private contractors (e.g. Blackwater) to support foreign conflicts may be the right way to go for governments depending on context.

Countries race to find new technologies. That is what evolution taught us to do, this is what we are the best at. Technology itself gave the answer. There are no secrets in the age of the internet. There is so much data and processing power that nothing can be kept secret in the long run. Just the assertiveness of a leader can show that they hide something new. Oftentimes technologies are withheld for a period. This triggers suspicion that agencies used them for bad purposes.

Fifth, there is psychology. If you are short on weapons or personnel, you can use the mind. Secrets, lies, disinformation all weaken not just the enemy but your own troops. They will believe that you use the same lies against them as well. The inconsistency causes pressure in the brain, and we become less logical, and we will lose with a bigger chance.

So what is the ultimate army in this case? It relies on simple truths and basic rules that glues it together. All the members know each other and the leaders. They are taught everything, so that even the smallest member can replace the general anytime or decide the same way the general would decide. What will happen is that they can act independently, even if the communication is lost. There is no force but everybody is convinced, what they do is right. There is no bigger power to be free and true.

This was my conclusion when I first met the power of artificial intelligence in 2011. My conclusion was still not proven wrong. There is no bigger weapon than winning the heart of the opponent and there is no stronger armor than trust.

This article was revised on May 26, 2024.