A darn good way to end the prospect of war would be end the age old paradigm of the ‘state’ altogether. People don’t wage wars, governments do – normally governments working at the beck and call of interested parties. The ‘people’ are then suckered into it.
The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.
The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.
And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.
I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.
As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.
And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.
First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.
Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.
Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.