Discussion Board 2

This week we are looking at understanding what works historically and in practice for reducing or eliminating warfare. Steven Pinker claims violence is overall on the decline over time and that civilization has worked in making us less prone to resolve conflicts by violence and in imposing costs on those who would use violence for gain (The idea that peace is gained by strength) while other thinkers we've studied claim that arms and weapons funding fuels a need for a constant war economy. Which theory is more persuasive? Thomas Sowell argues that disarmament led to WWII rather than diffuse it in "Intellectuals and Society" what do you think? Was WWII caused by the move of countries to disarm leading to aggressive nations seeking to press their advantage? Or did the allies not go far enough to transition to peace economies and WWII was fought to maintain the economy of warfare?