"As history since Hiroshima shows, the best, perhaps the only, way to curb war is to deter it with such overwhelming force as to turn it from a struggle into suicide"

Martin van Creveld draws on the lessons of the atomic age to address the persistent problem of war and violence between nations. He identifies the decisive impact that overwhelming force, particularly nuclear weapons, has had on international conflict since the bombing of Hiroshima. The possibility of destruction on a massive scale has transformed the calculus of war for world leaders, making the costs disproportionate and, in most cases, unthinkable.

The argument is that rational actors, when faced with the certainty or even the strong probability of mutual annihilation, reconsider their willingness to engage in military conflict. War ceases to appear as a heroic contest or a means of advancing national interests; instead, it becomes synonymous with collective suicide. The specter of overwhelming retaliation, by raising the stakes so high, ensures that deterrence takes precedence over aggression. Military buildup and the maintenance of credible retaliatory capability become a paradoxical guarantee of peace.

This perspective does not celebrate violence or militarism, but rather acknowledges the grim reality that ultimate force can suppress human impulses toward conflict. The emphasis is on deterrence as a psychological phenomenon, relying not on actual destruction, but on the anticipation of it. Fear of catastrophic loss outweighs any prospective gains, forcing potential aggressors to retreat from the brink.

The statement also recognizes a certain bleakness: that humanity’s best hope for peace may lie not in morality, negotiation, or law, but in fear. Traditional means of preventing war, such as diplomacy and treaties, are often inadequate in the face of deep-seated rivalries or miscalculations. Only when the prospect of war is equated with suicide does it become utterly unacceptable.

Van Creveld’s insight is therefore both sobering and pragmatic; it illuminates the paradox that, at the highest levels of destructive capability, strength and stability are intertwined, and the horror of total war becomes the strongest barrier against its occurrence.