[EnigmaFlare]

I don't think that would be stable. No war means losing the ability to fight which means eventually it'll be easy enough for just one small group to attack somebody much bigger but weaker.

If war is solved by all attacked countries surrendering immediately so one aggressor rules the world, I'm sure factions would emerge within it who are competing for power again.

Maybe a solution could come from some defensive technology permanently outperforming offensive technology? I think people would still find a way and the wars might be or begin by psychologically changing people's allegiances.

[kjkjadksj]

The risk of war between sacramento and san fransisco is zero. I don’t see why we can’t make that true for the world over one day.

[sujal]

How about between Florida and New York? Or cities in red states vs their state government? It’s not zero anymore, especially when politicians challenging federal authority (eg Texas with border control) in obviously illegal ways.

We have numerous examples - Jan 6th, the Bundy standoffs, Oklahoma City, the Black Wall Street bombings - the risk isn’t zero.

[EnigmaFlare]

That's because there's a common government that's more powerful than both of them and will stop any such war. But that common government still has to maintain its power with an army that can function.

Obviously civil wars happen all the time in places where there isn't a single powerful enough government to keep them suppressed.

Maybe you want one world government or a military alliance that includes every country and they all fight against any local wars no matter what. But what happens if some big enough group feels (or is) oppressed by that government and tries to fight it? Oppression by the majority forever is better than independence for anyone?

[kwhitefoot]

It's zero now. But if they ever find themselves in distinct nations then the odds will change.

[chgs]

wars inside a single US city can be quite common, typically over “turf”