> It was only the pressing war that goaded formerly peacefully inclined nuclear physicists to construct such technologies. With the resultant problems we now fa

> It was only the pressing war that goaded formerly peacefully inclined nuclear physicists to construct such technologies. With the resultant problems we now face of non-proliferation, cyber command and control, etc. But nuclear arms have essentially put an end to total war between developed nations. We've all agreed not to use them in conventional war, and disallowed chemical weapons as well, as those progressed from Lewisite and Mustard gas to terrifying V- and G- agents. In the absence of these technologies, pressing wars would have continued. >An optimal solution would be something akin to peaceful equilibrium throughout the planet. This is based on the notion that war is not necessary to maintain our species in optimal condition, which is an assumption that bears more examination. Why do we have war to begin with? Some species make war, many don't but some do, including us. But why do we do so? Doesn't it serve some beneficial or essential function for us?