But, at least in principle, wars are not an uncontrollable force of nature over which we have no control. They are man made. Men (and not usually women) start and fight wars. Presumably they can decide not to. Wars have not been consistently profitable, even to the victors. They have mostly led to destruction and loss of life. So where is the incentive to fight them? What benefit accrues to humanity or nature or is expected by the aggressors?

We have to roam far and wide to find any possible benefits to the species. It is generally held by biologists that evolution has been in the direction of improved viability. As more complex creatures have appeared their competitiveness has improved. The increased sophistication of armaments is in keeping with this trend. The improvement in mankind’s condition was not, however, the result. That had its source in science and technology, which is no doubt catalyzed by war. But it would be a stretch to claim that advances in science and technology constitute mankind’s primary benefit from wars. More properly these advances are to be seen as a secondary by-product.

So where is the primary benefit, or is there one? Even as a control of world population wars lag far behind disease. Only lately have they killed off significant numbers of humans and even in the first world war more lives where lost in the subsequent influenza epidemic than were lost in the war.

It is even difficult to find benefits accruing to the victor. The two world wars benefited no one and devastated the losers. The 1870 war between Prussia and France led to unification of Germany, but that could conceivably have been accomplished without the war. Did the Civil War benefit the U.S. and did the war of independence? These are hard calls. The Napoleonic wars brought Britain no tangible benefits. Was there a winner in the 30 years’ war? Was there one in the 100 years’ war between England and France?

Let us look at the motivation for war over the ages. Tribal warfare among primitive societies was mainly for the education and amusement of their young males. There may have been some material rewards as well, but these were not the main goal. As productivity improved societies evolved a warrior class whose sole occupation was warfare and who were maintained by the excess food now available from the improved productivity. It is interesting to note that this class invariably was an upper class generally ranking right behind the governing and clerical classes. Its duties were mostly the acquisition of territory for expansion or propagation of religion and the defense of the realm.

On occasion the motive was crassly materialistic: During the 100 years’ war kings of England would lead an army into France to capture local nobility for ransom. But, until the introduction of weapons of mass destruction, wars were not that costly in terms of life and treasure and were mostly fought as a sport for kings and an occupation for the warrior class.

With the advent of the repeating rifle and especially the machine gun the casualty rate took off.

“Das habe ich nicht gewollt” said the Kaiser when confronted with the carnage in France in the 1914 war. The 20th Century was the bloodiest in history. He may not have willed it, but it happened none the less. He clearly did not control it. So who did? The truth is: nobody did. The 1914 war started amid the enthusiasm of all the participants. Young men flocked to enlist and cheered on the way to the front. This enthusiasm did not long survive exposure to machine guns and trench warfare and the war ended when both sides had their bellies full. The contrast with the second war of the century in 1939 was stark. Icy silence greeted its announcement. No people had wanted it, no governments, even the military on both sides deplored it. One man in Germany wanted it and had maneuvered himself into the position of being able to force it on mankind. What can we make of this? The first war just happened, the second brought about by a single man against universal opposition?

Maybe mankind has no control over war and peace. Maybe war is a fundamental part of life unaffected by what men do to either promote it or avoid it. Mankind’s control over war and peace may be an illusion. History has its own laws and people merely act them out.

When Moses on the mountain heard God tell him “thou shalt not kill” he was old and hard of hearing.

For God would not have knowingly lied to him.