It doesn’t take a news junkie to figure out that the American media is obsessed over apocalyptic visions of a world war. Through constant headlines reading "Unchecked Russian Aggression in Ukraine risks NATO breakup", "North Korea conducts successful missile test", "Tehran warns US Navy to stay out of Gulf Waters” or "Chinese Military on high alert after tensions escalate over the South China Sea”, one may reach the conclusion that the world is in a state of fragile peace; An impending doom one might add. Increased Russian and Chinese militarization only adds to our fears. Yet, the picture of a crumbling international order is a grand illusion. Underneath the veil exists a strong global order capable of withstanding any threat of great power war. Such a global order reinforces a great powers' understanding that there are simply too many structural barriers to conflict.
A prime reason that there will never be a global war is that the costs for war are simply too astronomical. The 21st century global economy is deeply interconnected and a conflict between global powers would ensure the crippling of free trade and devastation of economies worldwide. Protectionist measures can be the result of war, as countries choose to form regional trade blocs as means of facilitating trade in response of conflict. Such measures would be responsible in undermining the institution of free trade which makes shipping, logistics, access to goods, and economic growth so possible. Open sea lines are key to international trade but are extremely fragile—any delay causes worldwide economic turbulence. At a time when shipping traffic is growing at a vast pace and comprises of approximately 90% of the world's trade, naval warfare can have horrible repercussions to maritime trade. During World War Two for instance, the United States cut off Japan from its crucial imports such as oil through blocking shipping routes; Nazi Germany employed submarines to hunt for Allied ships. The economic consequences at home can be equally as devastating. Historically, citizens of countries such as France, Germany, and Russia have experienced deep economic difficulties in time of war due to inflation, scarce resources, lesser pay and rationing. The government’s acquisition of common land, decreased food supplies, increased oil production, and increased industrial production ensures the collapse of other core industries such as tourism, construction, finances, and services. Global powers simply cannot afford to have decreased economic growth in such a globalized world. The Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 proved that an economic slowdown reverberates globally, freezing progress and in some instances spiraling countries to degrees of bankruptcy and alarming levels of unemployment.
The world may seem much more unstable than ever before. Today, supposedly rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran are in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet, the proliferation of such Weapons of Mass Destruction ironically provides a security blanket upon the world. Theories of International Relations lie upon the assumption that governments are rational actors who may retain national interests but aren’t willing to accomplish mutual destruction in pursuit of accomplishing such goals. As of 2016, eight sovereign nations have developed nuclear weapon capabilities.. Five of the largest holders of nuclear weapons have ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore,China and India are signatories of the no first use policy meaning that they will lash out with nuclear weapons only on the occasion that their adversaries utilize nuclear weapons. To date, there has been no war involving two states possessing nuclear warfare capabilities. Ever since Pakistan and India both gained nuclear weapons, no wars have broken out between the two. The animosity and deep level of mistrust hasn’t dwindled; Rather both governments realize that there is simply too much to lose. Both countries have developed second-strike capabilities to enhance their nuclear deterrence. Mutually Assured Destruction predates 1998 and has roots in defusing tensions between Soviet Moscow and Washington. The Cold War was won by an eccentric combination of diplomacy and nuclear deterrence, not by a single victory on the battlefield.
Often times during discussions of interstate warfare, many underestimate America’s capabilities to deter conflicts. Much of 21st century’s geopolitical conflicts have become much harder to develop into full all out wars due to US leadership. American foreign policy has formulated strong alliances, constructed institutions which support a liberal order, and fostered partnerships which transcend political differences. American hegemony is responsible for creating models such as the United Nations and NATO, both of which are responsible for global checks on conflict. In a uni-polar world, the United States has found itself cooperating with political diverse governments in aims to address security concerns, global warming, and energy security. Such extension of relations permits the United States to create effective regional security architectures which ensure that states increase diplomatic engagement to reach a peaceful solution with an aggressor in event of war.
While the window for great power warfare has closed, the windows for other forms of war remain open. Recent years have overseen fourth-generation warfare and various civil wars, both of which predate this century. Yet, the prevalence of such forms of warfare are distinct from the subject. Fourth Generation warfare can be attributed as a result of the improbability of a great power war. India and Pakistan have both been accused of funding guerilla groups and terrorists to undermine each other’s national security. The existence of Hezbollah, Hamas, and ISIS stand a testimony to the prevalence of fourth generation violence. The widespread usage of Internet and rise of Islamic fundamentalism make it is safe to assume that the future of war lies not in the hands of large militaries but in the malicious intents of radical groups.
