Will war ever be obsolete?

I'm asking a question about the future on a history board, but I feel there's a certain maturity and education here that I won't find on /pol/ or anywhere else.

All I ever wanted was for every ethnicity to have a country of their own, with the right to practice their culture freely, with peaceful coexistence between sovereign nations. Now we've learned that Trump is just another neo-con eager to balkanize the Middle East for Israel and the Gulf States, and probably also bomb a tiny Asian country that hasn't invaded another one in 64 years.

What I want to know is, will war ever be obsolete? I'm not a Marxist, but I appreciate the truth of historical materialism in that the course of human history is driven by economic concerns above all else. Will there ever be a time when we finally have enough of an abundance that nobody is interested in war anymore? Can it be done without abolishing nations and building some shitty world government? Or will technological marvels meant to make everybody richer only make the balance of power even more unequal?

(PS, since I know a lot of Jews browse this board. For what it's worth, Jew-hatred is a delusion. They're not doing anything differently than any other elite group has done in human history. People would still be bitching if it were WASPs or Asians.)

Humans will always invent new reasons to kill and steal from one another on an individual to a national scale. It is undoubtedly part of our nature.

It is indeed part of our nature. I just wish there were some obvious geopolitical structure that would minimize it.

I've read that Medieval battles actually had relatively low death tolls compared to antiquity and modernity. Could a large number of small states be the key to preventing perversions like the world wars or the Roman expansion into Europe from occurring again?

No the blood God demands blood.

Small states get gobbled up by stronger neighbors and become big states, alliances formed to stop these expansionists become big states, etc. The behemoth grows either way. As long as humans are materialist animals they will engage in conflict over something, the true end of war will be when we win the war within ourselves and transcend beyond the physical.

>but I feel there's a certain maturity and education here that I won't find on /pol/ or anywhere else.

Good one OP.

>All I ever wanted was for every ethnicity to have a country of their own, with the right to practice their culture freely, with peaceful coexistence between sovereign nations.
Why do so many people in the nationalist revival movement have this delusion that all of the ethnostates of the world will hermetically seal each other off from one another and just engage in peaceful trade? That's bullshit. True nationalists want their nations to subjugate and destroy others.

>I just wish there were some obvious geopolitical structure that would minimize it.

You live in 2017 user you should know why this statement is laughable

Marx distinguished between evil caused by the "system" and evil that will always exist in humans: to steal a bread out of hunger is an evil caused by the system, to steal a bread because you're too lazy to get your wallet out is human evil.

The economical reason for communism is that the internal contradictions of capitalism will hamper economy and only by removing it the growth can continue. The moral reason is that communism is the system which causes the least "systematic" evil.

There wouldn't be war in the classical sense, as there won't be multiple countries with different governments anymore. But you can bet that there will still be big groups of people trying to kill each other out of pity reasons. There will be as little violence as possible, but there will be some.

>Can it be done without abolishing nations
No, because the existence of Nations is one of the cause of war

>when we win the war within ourselves and transcend beyond the physical

You mean like becoming more religious? I'm not sure that has a great record of helping the situation to be honest.

>True nationalists want their nations to subjugate and destroy others.
Totally false. That's the no true Scotsman fallacy. People are interested in nationalism for a lot of reasons. Some want a feeling of community that modern culture desperately lacks. Some like the aesthetic of pageantry and parade. Some people like it because they literally want a diverse, multicultural world. But yes, I will concede that there are some revanchist psychopaths in our movement.

Trump is just appeasing the Deep State that got him elected. There's nothing unusual about this.

I mean, did you really think he'd just pull out of ME that easily, especially now when the Russians have their presence in the region? No sane worldpower would do that. The US have their interests and act accordingly to them no matter who is the president.

>You mean like becoming more religious? I'm not sure that has a great record of helping the situation to be honest.

Not religious. We need to be ruled by pure logic.

>but you can bet that there will still be big groups of people trying to kill each other out of pity reasons.

>There will be as little violence as possible, but there will be some.
Haven't most communist regimes been fantastically bloody though? The suffering can be unleashed based on the mood swings of an elite individual, which is arguably even worse than Western "democracies" which have some semblance of rule of law.

>Deep State that got him elected
Yeah that's what I thought when Wikileaks came out. I always thought it was the NSA rather than some nebulous "Russian hacker", but I believed the meme about an internal civil war in the US intelligence community, with the CIA backing Clinton and the DoD backing Trump.

Well my friend, logic is great, but it depends on what our starting assumptions are. If every individual immediately sought to maximize his self-interest, the outcome would be pretty ugly. We need to come up with some airtight philosophical method to justify why compassion is in the individual's self-interest.

I'm talking about the theoretic foundation of communism, not the state capitalist countries that LARP'd as marxists

Maybe we can adopt a Bonobo foreign policy. Imagine, instead of dropping bombs in foreign countries we have mutual sex. You could have leaders swap wives or have sex with each other. Orgies at the UN...

Ive been saying for some time that if you removed all other problems, niggas on /a/ would fucking kill each other over waifuwars.

There's hope for post-human descendants. Not much for humans.

At the end of the day, almost all warfare is based on competition for limited resources, whether they be farmland, minerals, water, oil, or even women. Find a way to make all these resources unlimited and equally accessible to all and you will have abolished warfare. Until then, as long as there are at least 2 people on planet, conflict is inevitable.

We have minimized it via MAD

There is only two ways to ultimately stop conflict:

1. Create a strict hierarchical structure that everyone agrees on and adheres to (Ant hills don't see much internal conflict).

2. Eliminate scarcity.

Taking technological progress and human nature into account, I'm banking on the latter.