Some people think that war is sometimes unavoidable to achieve peace. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

On the side I agree with, history offers cases in which armed resistance was the only realistic way to halt an aggressor determined to seize territory or eliminate an entire population. To clarify, when diplomatic channels have been exhausted and one party continues to inflict harm regardless of negotiation, inaction can itself prolong suffering rather than prevent it. For instance, international efforts to reason with regimes bent on invasion or genocide have repeatedly failed, and only decisive military intervention eventually halted the violence. In such extreme cases, war functions less as the cause of instability than as the last remaining safeguard against a far greater and more prolonged catastrophe.

However, this reasoning applies only to a narrow set of circumstances, and it should never be treated as a general rule. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of disputes, leaders resort to war prematurely, before genuinely exhausting diplomacy, economic sanctions or mediation by neutral parties. Admittedly, these slower approaches demand patience and compromise, which political leaders under domestic pressure are often unwilling to offer. That said, the human and economic devastation caused by armed conflict, including displaced populations and destroyed infrastructure, routinely outweighs whatever peace is eventually achieved, and frequently sows the resentment from which future conflicts grow.

To conclude, while I accept that war can occasionally be unavoidable when facing an aggressor who leaves no peaceful option, I maintain that in most disputes, patient diplomacy remains both a more effective and a far less costly route to lasting peace.