Nowadays, there is a trend among world leaders; giving furious speeches about the acts of another nation or leader and signaling that they are fully ready to act if needed only to backtrack the next day and to emphasize a steady temper must be maintained in global affairs because the age of offense has ended, and we are living in an age of defense. The main concern of our time is to stay safe rather than aim for gain. Today, whatever is lucrative is attained with means of diplomacy and politics rather than troops and arms. We live in an age of defense. But manufacturing fear in their own hearts for the sake of manufacturing the war machines that equate those of the opponents in strength must have seem odd to the world powers that before changing strategy, they changed the definition. Of defense. Today, defense is not about having the better radar system or better tanks, although it is undeniable that there will be some advantage to having them till the end of time, it is about having more “knowledge”. Today, world’s ‘premier league’ seems to be embarking on the maxim; “Knowledge is power”. Cybersecurity has already become a part of every syllabi in security studies, soon, we will see AI policy analysts and strategists, and biometric technologies has been standardized in procedures of citizenship, immigration, and border security.
History have seen countless wars fought for stupid reasons; such as bird droppings, a golden chair, a pig, a severed ear, or for no reason at all. Today, the ease of starting wars with no consideration for consequences appalls everyone, and this is largely a result of the Cold War. The prevailing mentality of the Cold War was; “What would they do to us with that if they do it first?” This led to an astonishing irony of bravado on the outside and cowardice in the inside. By the end of the Cold War, the paranoias started to manifest themselves as aversions from conflict, avoidance, reservations, and a reluctance to act belligerently, at least for the nations that shared strategic or military interests or were on par with respect to influence in the global sphere.
Granted that when it comes to war, any reason is invalid and any gain is loss, it it good to observe that “much ado about nothing” came to define threats and signals of war rather than wars themselves. It is the most perfect of inconsistencies.
As countries become more interested in guaranteeing their security through knowledge rather than seeming increasingly offensive and reckless, the meaning of ‘fear of war’ changes from being intimidated by the prospect of it to a reluctance to be involved in it, and it has been both thrilling and demanding for companies like ours to be a part of this semantic shift.