Ok, so I've just finished reading Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, and the novel featured a planet in which had reached a 20th-century level of technological and social development, however, war was a foreign concept on this world. This doesn't meant that there wasn't conflict between countries, but that that conflict between countries was low-level and ongoing rather than intensive for a limited period of time. People living in border regions would mount "forays" into the neighbouring countries, but usually those living far from the borders wouldn't take place in these conflicts.
This reminds me a little of the type of warfare which took place in pre-colonial Northeastern North America where the conflict between various nations and confederacies took the form of raids largely motivated by revenge and a desire for captives rather than for a conquest of territory. War parties were small and consisted of only those who chose to go to war (often those who wanted revenge for dead relatives or those looking for the prestige of being a warrior).
However, in that case, we're talking about situations in which no individual nation comprised more than 100 000 people, population densities were quite low, and political organization hadn't yet reached the level of well-defined states. My question is basically would it be possible for there to be a culture on Earth which reaches a state level of development without developing the idea of warfare. You can treat this as an AH challenge.
To fulfill this challenge, the culture must:
(1) Have a state which rules over a well-defined territory.
(2) Have enough of a division of labour that there is a well-defined political class of rulers/government.
(3) Have at least one state with a population of at least 100 000 which is in contact with another state of the same population. These two states must have population centres (at least towns) within 100 km of each other. (The idea here is I want warfare between the two states to be physically possible and reasonably feasible.)
When I say that this culture has no idea of warfare I mean that any conflict between the two states:
(1) Does not involve a mobilization of more than 100 people in the same place at the same time.
(2) Does not result in the death of more than 100 people in any given month of any given conflict.
Blood feuds between families, clans, etc. are OK as long as they also don't involve mobilizations of more than 100 people in the same place at the same time, and don't result in the death toll of more than 100 per month.
Gatherings of more than 100 are ok as long as they don't have intent to kill (e.g. peaceful protests, riots that result in looting but not killing, etc.)
Is this at all feasible? Or is it a utopian dream? I'm curious as to what other sorts of dispute resolutions mechanisms between states could replace war...
This reminds me a little of the type of warfare which took place in pre-colonial Northeastern North America where the conflict between various nations and confederacies took the form of raids largely motivated by revenge and a desire for captives rather than for a conquest of territory. War parties were small and consisted of only those who chose to go to war (often those who wanted revenge for dead relatives or those looking for the prestige of being a warrior).
However, in that case, we're talking about situations in which no individual nation comprised more than 100 000 people, population densities were quite low, and political organization hadn't yet reached the level of well-defined states. My question is basically would it be possible for there to be a culture on Earth which reaches a state level of development without developing the idea of warfare. You can treat this as an AH challenge.
To fulfill this challenge, the culture must:
(1) Have a state which rules over a well-defined territory.
(2) Have enough of a division of labour that there is a well-defined political class of rulers/government.
(3) Have at least one state with a population of at least 100 000 which is in contact with another state of the same population. These two states must have population centres (at least towns) within 100 km of each other. (The idea here is I want warfare between the two states to be physically possible and reasonably feasible.)
When I say that this culture has no idea of warfare I mean that any conflict between the two states:
(1) Does not involve a mobilization of more than 100 people in the same place at the same time.
(2) Does not result in the death of more than 100 people in any given month of any given conflict.
Blood feuds between families, clans, etc. are OK as long as they also don't involve mobilizations of more than 100 people in the same place at the same time, and don't result in the death toll of more than 100 per month.
Gatherings of more than 100 are ok as long as they don't have intent to kill (e.g. peaceful protests, riots that result in looting but not killing, etc.)
Is this at all feasible? Or is it a utopian dream? I'm curious as to what other sorts of dispute resolutions mechanisms between states could replace war...