Conflict, war, and terrorism are challenging to prevent, especially as multiple causes influence their development. However, theory and research by sociologists and other social scientists point to several avenues that may ultimately help make the world more peaceful. Additionally, anti-war social movements have helped bring awareness to the horrors of war and to expose the level of dissatisfaction about war, which may pressure governments to avoid or end them.
Preventing and Ending Conflict or War
The usual strategies suggested by political scientists and international relations experts to prevent war include arms control and diplomacy. Arms control refers to international agreements to restrict the development or deployment of certain weapons. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2023), distinguishes between arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation:
-
Arms control is the broadest of the three terms and generally refers to mutually agreed upon restraints or controls (usually between states) on the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation, deployment and use of troops, small arms, conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Arms control includes agreements that increase the transparency of military capabilities and activities, with the intention of reducing the risk of misinterpretation or miscalculation.
-
Disarmament refers to the act of eliminating or abolishing weapons (particularly offensive arms) either unilaterally or reciprocally. It may refer either to reducing the number of arms, or to eliminating entire categories of weapons.
-
Non-proliferation refers to "all efforts to prevent proliferation from occurring, or should it occur, to reverse it by any other means than the use of military force." Non-proliferation applies to both weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons) and conventional capabilities such as missiles and small arms.
As the US government explains, the approaches are seen "as an effective means to promote transparency, ease military planning, limit forces, and protect against uncertainty and surprise," which have "produced formal treaties and agreements, informal arrangements, and cooperative threat reduction and monitoring mechanisms" (Library of Congress 2025).
Diplomacy involves communications between nations intended to establish or preserve positive relations. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (2025), diplomacy can occur through negotiations (formal discussions on disputes), consultations (conversations on shared problems), summits or conferences (talks between top officials), day-to-day interactions (conversations or activities), and back-channel talks (secret communications). Watch the video below for a hypothetical example of how diplomacy works.
Beyond these two essential strategies, the roots of war must also be addressed. As discussed earlier, war is a social phenomenon and arises from decisions by political and military leaders. There is ample evidence that deceit accompanies many of these decisions, as leaders may go to wars for less than noble purposes. To the extent that this is true, citizens must always be ready to question any rationales given for war, and a free press in a democracy must exercise eternal vigilance in reporting on these rationales. According to critics, the press and the public were far too acquiescent in the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, just as they had been acquiescent a generation earlier when the Vietnam War began being waged (Solomon 2006). To prevent war, then, the press and the public must always be ready to question assumptions about the necessity of war. The same readiness should occur in regard to militarism and the size of the military budget.
As we think about how to prevent war, we must not forget two important types of changes that create pressures for war: Population change and environmental change. Effective efforts to reduce population growth in the areas of the world where it is far too rapid will yield benefits, and one such benefit is a lower likelihood that nations will go to war. Effective efforts to address climate change will also yield benefits, again including a lower likelihood of war and ethnic conflict in certain parts of the world.
Finally, efforts to prevent war must keep in mind the fact that ideological differences and prejudice sometimes motivate decisions to go to war or to engage in the patterns of interaction we discussed such as expulsion and genocide. It might sound rather idealistic to say that governments and their people should respect ideological differences and be welcoming toward people who hold different religious or other ideologies or have different ethnic backgrounds. However, any efforts by international bodies, such as the United Nations, to achieve greater understanding along these lines will limit the potential for war and conflict. Research suggests that practices such as cooperative learning, in which individuals collaboratively teach and learn together, and portraying social norms in media or encouraging perspective taking and empathy in media are promising strategies to reduce prejudice (Paluck & Green 2009).
The same potential holds true for efforts to increase educational attainment within the US and other nations. Because prejudice generally declines as education increases, measures that raise education levels may reduce the potential for conflict and war. One remarkable story illustrates how education can be transformative: Derek Black is the son of KKK grand wizard Don Black, and it was assumed that he would take over his father's role as the head of the white nationalist movement. During his time in college he got to know people of other identities and backgrounds, and formed friendships with Jewish classmates. His education and opportunities to interact with others helped him learn to question the prejudicial that beliefs he was socialized into, and he eventually left and publicly renounced the white nationalist movement. To learn more, check out New York Times reporter Eli Saslow's book Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of a Former White Nationalist.
In addition to these strategies to prevent or end war, some argue that it is vital to reduce the size of the US military budget. Defense analysts who believe that this budget is too high have proposed specific cuts in weapons systems that are not needed and in military personnel at home and abroad who are not needed (Arquilla & Fogelson-Lubliner 2011; Knight 2011; Sustainable Defense Task Force 2010). Making these cuts, these critics argue, would save the nation over $100 billion annually without endangering national security. This large sum could be reallocated to help meet the nation’s other needs, such as to reduce poverty, strengthen housing programs, expand access to education, and engage in other efforts that would have great benefits to the nation.
Reducing Terrorism
Because of 9/11 and other transnational terrorism, most analyses of stopping terrorism focus on this specific type of terrorism. Traditional efforts to stop transnational terrorism take two forms (White 2012). The first strategy involves attempts to capture known terrorists and to destroy their camps and facilities and is commonly called a law enforcement or military approach. The second strategy stems from the recognition of the structural roots of terrorism just described and is often called a structural-reform approach. Each approach has advocates among terrorism experts, and each approach has critics.
Law enforcement and military efforts have been known to weaken terrorist forces, but terrorist groups have persisted despite these measures. Worse yet, these measures may ironically inspire terrorists to commit further terrorism and increase public support for their cause. Critics also worry that the military approach endangers civil liberties, as the debate over the US response to terrorism since 9/11 so vividly illustrates (Cole & Lobel 2007). This debate took an interesting turn in late 2010 amid the increasing use of airport scanners that generate body images. Many people criticized the scanning as an invasion of privacy, and they also criticized the invasiveness of the “pat-down” searches that were used for people who chose not to be scanned (Reinberg 2010).
In view of all these problems, many terrorism experts instead favor the structural-reform approach, which they say can reduce terrorism by improving or eliminating the conditions that give rise to the discontent that leads individuals to commit terrorism. Here again the assessment of the heads of the 9/11 Commission illustrates this view:
"We must use all the tools of U.S. power—including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange programs—to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less hostile to our interests and values. America’s long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope" (Kean & Hamilton 2007).
Although there are no easy solutions to transnational terrorism, then, efforts to stop this form of terrorism must not neglect its structural roots. As long as these roots persist, new terrorists will come along to replace any terrorists who are captured or killed. Such recognition of the ultimate causes of transnational terrorism is thus essential for the creation of a more peaceable world.
Individual Agency and Collective Action
History shows that social movements can help prevent or end armament and war and limit the unchecked use of military power once war has begun (Breyman 2001; Staggenborg 2010). Antiwar activism has been a part of US history since the Revolutionary War. US involvement in war has provoked protests, denunciation speeches and writings from public figures, and sustained and organized collective action that constitutes social movements.
Perhaps the most notable antiwar collective action was the antiwar social movement against the Vietnam War, particularly during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Much of this collective action was student-led, as college students have long played a vital role in pushing for social change. Protests spanned the nation and activists held teach-ins or sit-ins, destroyed draft cards, and engaged in civil disobedience.
In the 1960s and 70s student activist groups and others protested the Vietnam War, engaging in antiwar collective action to push for an end to the war.
Bring All the Troops Home Now, USD Alcalá 1971 by Alcalá yearbook, 1971, University of San Diego via Picryl is under the public domain
As The White House Historical Association (2025) explains, these actions put pressure on the government, for instance:
"The Mayday Protest in 1971 is a prime example of how citizens used the nation’s capital as the ground on which to stage their disapproval. Activists planned to shut down the city completely, handicapping the government and making it impossible for it to function. Protesters camped out in masses on the edges of downtown Washington on May 2, 1971. They chose this place so they would be able to spread out along the entrances to the city as quickly as possible the next day. Traffic was stopped, at least for a few hours, and although it angered some commuters, no one could disregard the strength of the movement. CIA director Richard Helms remarked that Mayday was 'one of the things that was putting increasing pressure on the [Nixon] administration to try and find some way to get out of the war.'"
Students, other individuals, and groups have engaged in collective action around other wars. For instance, Pro-Palestinian protests recently erupted across the nation, particularly on college campuses, to end the war in Gaza and stop the harm or genocide of Palestinian people. A historical example includes the Women's Peace Parade in 1914 was organized by feminist women to protest World War I. Feminist groups are still fighting for peace. One such group is the Feminist Peace Initiative, which was formed only in 2020 when the organizations Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, MADRE, and Women Cross DMZ invited a couple dozen women and gender nonconforming people, primarily BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), to engage in antiwar and anti-militarism efforts and to push for revisions in US foreign policy. They have published a framework and a playbook to advance these feminist peace efforts. You may learn more about this group at their website A Feminist Vision for Peace.
Some organizations work for peace and provide support to those experiencing the consequences of war. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is one such organization, which has been instrumental in fighting for peace and aiding those impacted by war.
People Making a Difference
Working Toward Peace Across the World
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that has long worked for peace and social justice. Its national office is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it has local offices in more than thirty other US cities and also in more than a dozen other nations.
AFSC was established in 1917 to help conscientious objectors serve their country in nonmilitary ways during World War I. After that war ended with the defeat of Germany and Austria, AFSC provided food to thousands of German and Austrian children. It helped Jewish refugees after Hitler came to power, and sent various forms of aid to Japan after World War II ended.
During the 1960s, it provided nonviolence training for civil rights activists and took a leading role in the movement to end the Vietnam War. Since the 1960s, AFSC has provided various types of help to immigrants, migrant workers, prisoners, and other 'have-not' groups in need of social justice. It also works to achieve nonviolent conflict resolution in urban communities and spoke out against plans to begin war in Iraq in 2003.
In 1947, AFSC and its British counterpart won the Nobel Peace Prize for their aid to hungry children and other Europeans during and after World Wars I and II. The Nobel committee proclaimed in part, "The Quakers have shown us that it is possible to carry into action something which is deeply rooted in the minds of many: sympathy with others; the desire to help others… without regard to nationality or race; feelings which, when carried into deeds, must provide the foundations of a lasting peace."
Today, the AFSC "works with communities worldwide to challenge injustice and build conditions for lasting peace" and declares "We are steadfast in our commitment to nonviolence and our belief in the transformative power of love to overcome conflict and oppression."
For over a century, the American Friends Service Committee has been active in many ways to achieve a more just, peaceable world. It deserves the world’s thanks for helping to make a difference. For further information, visit http://www.afsc.org.
Thus, individuals have used their agency and participated in collective action across US history to help prevent or bring an end to war, and to help alleviate the harsh consequences of war and conflict.
