Conflicting opinions

Twisted metal, shattered walls and mounded rubble. Smoke rises into the sky and bodies are carried from the rubble. This was the scene late last Monday, after Israeli war planes destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the capital of Syria.

Iran is a supporter of the regimes in Lebanon and Syria, two of Israel's hostile neighbours. However, an attack on a diplomatic building is a major provocation, and Iran is now preparing to take revenge. This could mean strikes against Israel, or renewed attempts to make a nuclear weapon.

Many fear that the conflict in Gaza will escalate to involve the entire region. At the same time, Putin's invasion of Ukraine has drawn Europe and America into indirect conflict with Russia. There is also the possibility that China will invade Taiwan, sparking a global war.

According to a recent poll, 53% of people in Britain think another world war is likely in the next five to 10 years.¹ But here are five reasons why they are wrong:

Russian overreach. Russia's invasion of Ukraine means Eastern Europe feels at risk. However, Russia has used up so many soldiers and so much material, it will not have the capacity to attack anyone else for many years. "I suspect that the invasion won't lead to a return to the age of warring civilisation," argues public intellectual Steven Pinker.²

Mad times. Nuclear weapons are frightening, but they can also bring security. After all, you cannot use an atomic bomb against another country with the same technology, or you will face a nuclear attack. This is known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and it means the risk of starting a nuclear war is almost always higher than the reward.

Respecting China. Many worry that the rivalry between America and China could lead to conflict, especially over Taiwan. However, foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger, who died last November, believed that it is "possible for China and the United States to coexist without the threat of all-out-war".³

Digital dependency. In the globalised world, countries rely on each other for products. In particular, technology supply chains mean that even superpowers cannot cut themselves off from the world. Today, the economic cost of a global war would be higher than at any other time in history.

Apocalypse now. People are psychologically primed to think they are living through the "end times". Global warming, artificial intelligence, the next pandemic - there is always something that could cause an apocalypse. As scientific writer Michael Shermer explains, apocalyptic visions help us make sense of a "seemingly senseless world".⁴

But perhaps this is naive. After all, the connected nature of the modern world makes it hard for any conflict to stay in one place. And there is always the risk of one unpredictable event causing a chain reaction - as with the start of World War One.

With war, we cannot simply hope for the best. However, if we prepare for the worst, we may well be pleasantly surprised. When it comes to conflict, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Is this too optimistic?

Yes: The invasion of Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and the Chinese threat to Taiwan. This is the most dangerous moment in global security since the end of the Cold War.

No: The world is an unstable place, but we shouldn't exaggerate the threat with pessimistic predictions. It is also much safer and more economically connected than ever before.

Or... It takes more than optimism to stop a war. Preparing for the worst possible outcome, even if it is unlikely, is the best way to stay safe.