"Nobel was a genuine friend of peace. He even went so far as to believe that he had invented a tool of destruction, dynamite, which would make war so senseless that it would become impossible. He was wrong"

Alfred Nobel, most famous for inventing dynamite and establishing the Nobel Prizes, harbored a paradoxical aspiration. The passage reflects on Nobel's belief that by creating dynamite, an immensely powerful explosive, he would ultimately render war obsolete. Nobel supposedly reasoned that the sheer destructive capability of his invention would deter nations from waging war, since the catastrophic consequences would be too dire to risk. This perspective reveals Nobel's complex relationship with his own invention and the broader human quest for peace.

Alva Myrdal's commentary both admires and gently critiques Nobel's idealism. She acknowledges his earnest desire for peace, emphasizing that Nobel's invention was not rooted in a lust for violence, but rather a somewhat utopian expectation that technological advancements could guide human morality. Nobel's logic harkens to the theory of deterrence, a concept that emerged more explicitly with the advent of nuclear weapons decades later: if both sides have a capacity for mutually assured destruction, they might avoid war altogether.

However, Myrdal concludes with the words, "He was wrong". Human nature, history, and the insatiable drive for power and dominance undermined Nobel's hopes. Instead of curtailing warfare, dynamite, and later, more advanced explosives, became tools of unprecedented destruction, amplifying the intensity and devastation of conflicts around the world. The belief that horrific weaponry would deter conflict underestimates the complexities of political, economic, and social drivers of war. In practice, technological advancements in weaponry have often escalated arms races and made warfare deadlier rather than obsolete.

Myrdal's reflection serves as both a tribute and a caution: technological innovation, even when inspired by the most humane intentions, cannot alone secure peace. The responsibility for peace rests on the collective will, values, and choices of humanity, not solely on the instruments or inventions we create.