As the Brown University’s estimates for the ‘War on Terror’ of the 21st century have made clear, if indirect impacts of war are included then mortality can be many times more than the deaths caused directly by war and conflict. These estimates have stated that the ‘war on terror’ claimed about 0.9 million lives directly, but if indirectly caused mortality is included the figure rises much more menacingly to 4.5 million. In other words, in this context, indirectly caused deaths are about four times the directly caused deaths.

This figure does not include all the countries ravaged by the war on terror, and needs updating too. What is even more disturbing is that talk of the possibility of the third world war and a nuclear war has been heard more during the last two years than in the several decades preceding this, largely due to the possibility of a direct conflict between the USA/NATO and Russia, taking off from the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine, and to a lesser extent the possibility of a direct war between the USA and China. An even broader war with NATO, a few Asian allies and possibly Australia on one side and the ‘axis’ of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea on the other side has also been discussed as a more distant possibility which, however, cannot be entirely ruled out, even though it would surely be a complete disaster. Einstein, when asked what a third world war would look like responded that he does not know how the third war would be fought, but the fourth one would be fought with stones.

He was referring of course to the reality of wars becoming so destructive that the third world war would in fact ruin the world almost entirely. Wars have become even more destructive since Einstein spoke these words, and their destructiveness appears destined to increase further, as more and more resources and human ingenuity are being diverted to increase destructive capabilities instead of constructive ones, even though millions and millions remain deprived of even basic needs and the requirements of ecological repair and rehabilitation are perhaps the most urgent.

Hence while the 20th century witnessed a six fold increase in war and conflict related mortality compared to the 19th century, the 21st century may witness something unique and unprecedented in the already highly destructive history of war and conflict – it may witness wars with the capacity of wiping out, in terms of direct and indirect impacts, most of the life on earth and almost the entire human life, apart from disrupting very badly the basic lifeenabling and life-nurturing conditions of the planet. This would be the inevitable result if only 10 per cent of the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons are used. However even more destructive weapons of mass destruction are being developed, and due to a relentless quest for dominance that appears to be blind to all its grave dangers, the biggest military and economic powers are more frequently seen to be on the verge of direct confrontation and war. Hence this writer has been arguing consistently for quite some time that the present time is not just for incremental reform (although even that would be welcome) but for bravely and steadily moving towards a no-war future. The role of the peace movement is to minimize the distress caused by all kinds of violence – violence in daily life as well as war and the arms race.

On the one hand it seeks to minimize the possibilities of various forms of violence including self-violence in daily life. So many efforts are already being made for this, but there may be problems in them. To give one example, to reduce possibilities of various forms of self-violence, there may be over-reliance on certain medicines whose benefits may also be exaggerated for economic gain. The role of the peace movement may be to provide a more evidence-based approach and also to provide a wider, holistic understanding of the social situation, helping to understand root causes of violence and also ways of reducing this.

If the peace movement is successful in this, then this will attract a large number of people who should be involved in various important peace activities such as inter-faith harmony and ensuring peace in communities at various levels. This mobilization of a large number of people for peace in daily life also provides increasing opportunities for mobilizing people on world peace, disarmament and minimizing the possibilities of war and conflict. Peace movements of various countries can cooperate with each other all the time to take this forward at world level, ultimately establishing the peace movement as a very important force for creating a better and safer world.

One of the most important objectives should be to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, to reduce all weapons, minimize the military industrial complex and ultimately to create a future without wars. If there is peace and stability, chances of cooperation for resolving serious environmental problems increase significantly. Hence both by eliminating weapons of mass destruction as well as by facilitating cooperation for resolving global environmental problems like climate change such a peace movement can contribute greatly to saving and protecting the life-nurturing conditions of our planet.

Hence these two important tasks of reducing violence in daily life in various ways should be integrated with the wider task of world peace and disarmament, thereby creating possibilities of millions and millions of people becoming a part of this movement. Durable peace is only possible if it is peace with justice and so the peace movement is inevitably committed to a world based on justice and equality. So much care is taken to ensure that children and young adults are able to pursue education in accordance with their career interests. As violence is such an important cause of distress and destruction, why not give equal attention to ensuring that children and adolescents grow up with values and world-views based on peace with justice?

Nelson Mandela said: “Many who live with violence day in and out assume that it is an intrinsic part of the human condition. But this is not so. Violence can be prevented. Violent cultures can be turned around. In my own country and around the world we have shining examples of how violence has been countered. Governments, communities and individuals can make a difference…Safety and security don’t just happen: they are the result of collective consensus and public investment.”

Hence a peace movement should be broad-based, should have continuity and should proceed further with careful evidence-based planning to ensure high levels of success in reducing violence at all levels. (The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril and A Day in 2071.)