It's obvious that there's no simple solution. There may not even be a complex one.
But I think that if there is, at its heart you need to find a way to convince people not to take up arms against each other. Wars occur because for whatever reason people collectively make a decision to use force or violence against others to achieve a specific goal.
In some cases that decision arises because the combatants have very little choice in the matter. You have (sometimes very young) people who have no education, no means of earning a living (and yet living in proximity to those who do), and no means to escape their circumstances. For them taking up arms is a means of survival. So to me, it would seem the most effective way to combat these circumstance is through economic and social means. I don't mean free handouts. I mean figuring out how to provide better options to those who don't have any. This is not an easy problem.
In some cases that decision arises because the combatants choose to (or are forced to) accept specific religious ideas. Some people are brought up with notions repeatedly drilled into their heads and chastised for questioning them. This life is temporary, or transitory. There are all-powerful deities (or deity). Those who do not follow that deity's commandments are doomed to suffer for eternity. When someone embraces such ideas, it opens the door to other more toxic ideas - that one group has a kind of moral authority over another,or that an individual can avoid responsibility for lethal actions, or that the decision to take up arms is mandated by scripture that cannot be questioned. This is another problem that is not easy to solve because as much as one might vilify religion, it also provides comfort in times of grief, it brings communities together, it permeates and even defines culture, it provides people with a sense of purpose, and it can steer people away from other undesirable behaviours. Because these are ideas they have to be challenged in the intellectual arena. I look at the Richard Dawkins', Sam Harris', Christopher Hitchens' of the world and though I may not agree with everything they say, I think they're on to something. But how do you debate with someone who does the intellectual equivalent of putting his hands on his ears and sings "la la la la!"
Building on those points you have social pressure. Some people do have a choice in the matter, but are subject to all sorts of pressures:
- A young man wants to prove himself to the world. (Not to exclude women from this either, but in general I don't think women face the same pressures as men do when it comes to self-definition.)
- Taking up arms to defend ones country, ideals, social group, etc. is reinforced positively within that group.
- When all of your friends take up machine guns do you really want to be the guy who refuses?
- Military recruitment videos are not designed to look uncool.
Solving this means taking a hard look at social and cultural pressures, and again these aren't black and white. A country needs to have an armed forces for many reasons. And sometimes the army with its rigid hierarchy and discipline, is a good place for people who need that kind of structure.
And then there is this idea of population pressure that suggests to an extent war is biological in nature and based on limited resources. I don't know how valid it is when you factor sentient decision making into the mix, but there's only so much oil in the world, only so much food, only so much real estate, etc. What separates that "haves" and the "have nots" is often defined by who can put up the bigger fight. Solving this one involves effectively mitigating those pressures.
And you can't forget the "crazy" factor. Some people actually ARE psychopathic or sociopathic. It's natural to assume and I think it holds true for the vast majority of people, that peace is the default state, that in absence of a specific cause we would all be peaceful. But there are some people for whom I'm not sure this is the case. That part of the brain that says "killing is bad" is somehow not functioning the way that it does in the rest of the population. Though rare, we have no guarantees that such people won't rise to positions of power and influence. I have no idea how to deal with this factor - but it probably starts with understanding.
Will we ever get there? I don't know.
But there's value in trying.
