An Era of Peace—or War Through Strength?

Amid the deafening global turmoil stretching from East to West and from the far North to the depths of the South, one fundamental question demands attention: Has the world entered an era of peace—or an era of war sustained through strength?

The question extends far beyond the United States alone. Increasingly, it appears that military power has become the defining language of diplomacy as the world moves toward the middle of the twenty-first century.

How did this concept evolve from a philosophical principle into an operational reality that shapes international affairs?

The origins of the idea remain disputed. Some historians trace it to the Roman military strategist Vegetius, who is credited with the famous maxim, "If you want peace, prepare for war." Others attribute it to Emperor Hadrian, while another school argues that Saint Augustine first articulated the concept in his monumental work The City of God.

Whatever its origins, the principle has become a defining feature of contemporary international politics.

From Russia to China, from Washington to Brussels, and from Australia to South America, an increasingly common strategic assumption has emerged: if peace is to be preserved—the essential foundation of prosperity and development—a nation must demonstrate that it is prepared for war at any moment.

The philosophy is straightforward. A state that builds overwhelming military capabilities and maintains decisive superiority over any potential adversary is less likely to be attacked, because its enemies understand that aggression would bring swift and devastating retaliation.

Viewed through this lens, "peace through strength" is rapidly becoming the strategic framework through which global competition is likely to be managed throughout the remainder of this century.

Current international developments certainly lend credibility to such a conclusion.

The renewed global arms race is perhaps the clearest illustration. Unlike the military competition of previous eras, today's race is broader, faster, and technologically more sophisticated.

Russia, for example, appears convinced that lasting peace with NATO is unattainable except through overwhelming strategic deterrence. This belief is reflected in the deployment of advanced nuclear systems, including the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile—often dubbed the "Satan II" missile—which is capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads. Equally significant are Russia's continuing investments in strategic submarines equipped with nuclear capabilities powerful enough to devastate the world many times over.

China, meanwhile, continues to expand its military capabilities across land, sea, air, and space. Its growing defense posture reflects not only ambitions for a more multipolar international order but also Beijing's determination to secure the stability it considers necessary for advancing global initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.

In recent weeks, alongside testing a new ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean, Western intelligence agencies reported Chinese experiments beneath the Arctic seabed involving containers or silos capable of storing dormant nuclear warheads for extended periods before activating them remotely if needed. Such developments could potentially circumvent restrictions established under the 1971 Seabed Arms Control Treaty.

The conclusion is clear: Washington is far from the only capital embracing the doctrine of peace through strength. Most emerging powers competing for influence in an increasingly multipolar world appear to share the same strategic logic.

Yet a more profound question remains.

Does overwhelming military power truly guarantee security for nations and peoples? Or does it create irresistible temptations for political and military leaders to engage in even more destructive conflicts?

The contemporary international system increasingly resembles what might be called a "trap of excessive power." On one hand, military strength is justified as an indispensable guarantee of peace. On the other, excessive reliance on force risks creating conditions in which confrontation becomes more likely rather than less.

The dilemma is stark.

Extending an olive branch to adversaries may be interpreted as weakness and exploited against those who seek compromise. Conversely, relying excessively on military deterrence can encourage strategic overconfidence and gradually transform deterrence into confrontation.

In either scenario, the result may no longer be peace through strength, but rather war through strength.

Day after day, traditional diplomacy appears to be losing both its credibility and effectiveness. Diplomatic memoranda increasingly give way to mutual suspicion rather than mutual understanding, while international agreements risk losing legitimacy when applied selectively rather than universally. As a consequence, the international system seems to be drifting back toward an older model in which the balance of power is maintained primarily through military capability.

The question confronting humanity is therefore unavoidable: Are we moving from peace sustained by strength to wars driven by strength?

History offers a sobering precedent.

The nineteenth century witnessed a gradual transition from limited wars fought in the name of military honor to total wars that engulfed entire societies.

The lesson remains relevant today.

Peace through strength may deter conflict, but it comes at an enormous financial, political, and strategic cost. Whether it ultimately preserves stability or merely postpones a larger confrontation remains one of the defining questions of our age.

Source: Asharq Al-Awsat.