Okay, so here we have the western nations. Some of the richest, most powerful nations on the planet. As already said, a lot of these nations are pacifistic and weak militarily. Soooo, this eventually leads to a more aggressive nation taking advantage of this. ie, Russia into Georgia, with the EU doing nothing. On the other hand, lets say the EU was actually armed. United, strong militarily, and getting to be less and less democratic because of globalization, perhaps the EU would eventually see itself becoming the bully, the aggressor in this regard. There is really nothing to stop it, if it were becoming less democratic, in that the people wouldn’t have much say in stopping it from pushing other nations around.
But, after every large war, usually there is a push for peace, for no more war. So lets say, there was WW3, and again, we win. More casualties this time, nukes used, but we do win. Again, there would be a massive movement for peace to happen, and war would be considered the last resort. Then, an aggressor would arise, say 30 years from now, and war would again be considered last use, and war happens again. etc etc. But lets say, after the next “big one”, there is a continual vigilance against aggressors. All nations, at least free ones, combine to fight against aggressors and prevent a future, larger war from happening. This does prevent a larger war from happening, if the united countries do not become the bullies themselves, but use their armaments for the bettering of the world. However, there would also be a paranoia associated with this. In the fears of repeating history and allowing “the next Hitler” from arising, there would be many wars left and right, cracking down on smaller, awful dictators, more missions like the one in Afghanistan right now. Fundamentally, this could be considered a “peace”, in that it prevents a terrible, hugely costly war from ever happening again. But on the other side, the cost of this would be constant militarism and fear of war. Eventually, if this tactic was continued, there perhaps would be a lull in dictators out of fear of being the next target, and perhaps, PERHAPS, a peace could be met. The only problem with this, is that the united nations would have to remain forever vigilant, lest they fall into the world peace trap, and new dictators would arise after testing the waters and seeing us as weak because we don’t lambaste them with missiles. So ironically: perhaps, perhaps peace would be possible. Only after an extreme and very, very costly and very long period of war, and a never ending will to attack future threats.
I prefer what we do now, to be honest, though if only a tad more aggressive and weak in dealing with . Simply, world peace would be too awful, costly, calculating and devastating thing to happen to this world, something no democratic nation could ever do. Only a heartless, emotionless, psychopathic dictator could ever do that. And anyways, after winning the world from dictators, what is to stop this all powerful dictator/group of dictators from completely taking over the world and uniting it under one flag? To achieve world peace in that manner would be the same as creating a complete and constant militarism, with the world under martial law with the people having no freedoms.
So basically, I do think world “peace” is possible. But man would it be awful.