The Guardian US has been collaborating with Brian Lehrer on WNYC's End of War series. Brian has asked you, his listeners, and dozens of guests: is war inevitable? Now he'll gather a crowd in a live show at The Greene Space at WNYC to ask: how do we achieve peace? Watch Brian, author John Horgan, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and a panel of refugees, peace builders and veterans of war. Live video starts at 10am on Wednesday, June 13th, with a conversation about the European debt crisis. The End of War conversation begins at 10:40. More on the Brian Lehrer Show site here.

Here are a few of our favorite responses from the End of War people's panel, also featured on WNYC:

'We end war or war will end us' – George Delf

George Delf. Photograph: Guardian

After a lifetime objecting to war I conclude: either we end war or war will end us. We debate endlessly the madness of war, yet almost never start with the madness of each of us. Responsibility and blame are dumped on enemies, leaders, arms-dealers, military and religious fanatics. Anyone but you and me.

It is time to own up. I am a democrat who claims a share in my nation's actions. I prove it by voting, paying taxes and yelling at my television screen. So a Blair/Bush/Obama war is mine, too. Without millions like me our wars could not start. Hanan Matrud would still be alive, instead of a dead eight-year-old girl, shot by a British soldier outside her home in Iraq. "An unfortunate mistake," said the army inquiry. The usual cop-out and a lie.

To send an army far away to a foreign land and kill a little girl is no mistake. 'Collateral damage,' the disgraceful euphemism, is part of every war. Her death is a crime of the first magnitude. Ours. Refusal to kill anyone at all, for any reason, seems like wild idealism in a deluded age. Yet it is the key to a barbaric prison. Outside is a new civilisation based on respect for life. A memorial for Hanan and untold millions. War is crime. Let's wake up. Killing people is wrong, any time, anywhere, whatever cannibal chiefs may say.

'We need more bodies like UN to end war' – Richard Kapit

Richard Kapit. Photograph: Guardian

The end of war will happen one day. Consider recent American policy regarding military interventions. The US is unique in its capacity and propensity for military operations, and it probably engages in more of them than any other nation. Nevertheless, nowadays, even the US usually seeks a UN security council sanction to justify an invasion and a Nato resolution and backing to execute one.

War will become less frequent as international quasi-governmental bodies, similar to the UN and Nato, establish precedents, rules, and international laws that require application of non-military sanctions before military operations begin. Something similar is happening now in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear material enrichment operations.

The end of war will be accomplished when international governmental bodies set up standing police forces capable of military operations and interventions, and they then routinely and without exception insist that individual nations utilize international legislative, judicial, and other non-military means to bring international conflicts to resolution.

'Women will lead the end of war' – Julia Beeman

Julia C Beeman Photograph: Guardian

More women in charge would be a good start to ending war. Testosterone is a major bearer of aggression. Women are more inclined by nature to negotiation and cooperation than men.

I applaud the efforts already being made in this direction. Estrogen must have its day, if we are to modify our propensity to war.

A clear metaphor can be found in the beheading of the Assyrian general Holofernes by Judith (as narrated in the Old Testament of the Christian bible). On behalf of her and her compatriots' values, he had to go. Many of today's women have also had to resort to the very methods they detest in order to be heard.

Having made this point, I have realized there is a more profound and ubiquitous imbalance tending toward conflict in human society, in the form of inequality. As long as there are the few who wield authority over and exploit for their own purposes the many, there can be no peace. Democracy, as well as all other forms of government, has failed in this regard.

'War is our default mode of resolving conflict' – John Plotz

John Plotz Photograph: Guardian

For almost all the ten thousand generations of homo sapiens, we have lived in smallish bands of several dozen, as many hunter-gatherers still do. The band supports us and we support the band.

As far as I know all human societies are willing to kill outsiders in the interest of their own group. The same is true of our closest relatives, the murderous chimpanzees. Bonobos are famously amorous, but only within the group. The inborn sociality of human beings is hard-wired loyalty to the group and at least potential hostility to outsiders. Since the rise of civilization (so called), bands have dissolved to be replaced by many different sorts of connection. Our impulses for cooperation and competition have not disappeared. Rather, they have broken into bewildering fragments.

War is our default mode of resolving conflict. Some of us actually enjoy war. Is war inevitable? Not quite, I think. In principle we can recognize and overcome our own impulses. But pious ejaculations about peace and 'spirituality' (whatever that is) will not do the trick.

'War is a refined, lucurative industry' – Alasdar Mullarney

avatar comment blue

That almost all nations now maintain a standing army speaks to a refined culture of war, far evolved from the sporadic tribal feuding of our distant ancestors. The virtually unchallenged acceptance of the existence of what we ought to recognize as a corrupt alliance between the military and industry points to the importance of military prowess to a nation's self-image. Even in these troubled times, when we ought to be re-evaluating how we can reconcile our apparently growing needs – or wants – with the limited resources of this planet, it is tantamount to treason to question the ever increasing expenditure of taxpayers money on the war machine. I fear the 'defense' industry is far too lucrative to be allowed succumb to peace – and it does make the fairytale unemployment statistics look better.

'War is a highly seductive choice' – Janette Daniel-Whitney

Janette Daniel-Whitney Photograph: Guardian

Is war inevitable? Of course not. Humans are quite capable of dealing with life¹s challenges without the disaster that is war. However, if war is not inevitable, neither is an end to war. War is a choice, a highly seductive choice, especially when those in a position to start wars feel threatened, impotent, impatient, imperious, self-righteous, self-interested or just plain terrified.

Although waging war requires complex calculations and strategies, it reduces the complexities and ambiguities of life to formulas. Defeat of the opposition becomes the only acceptable outcome in support of which those who most benefit from wars and violence have crafted a vast array of mythologies with a long and blinding list of who 'we' are and who 'they' are. Once war is engaged, to collaborate with the other in developing mutually beneficial strategies becomes beyond the pale. The choice to go to war represents one of humanity's greatest personal and social/national failures and seems only to sew the seeds of future wars.

So how to resist the simplistic solution of war? Everyone concerned with making a world without war lives in this question. My current thoughts include internalizing the value of well-being for all. This does not require a conflict free/challenge free world. Planetary well-being will constantly challenge us to work collaboratively with honesty, authenticity, energy, empathy, compassion, intelligence and determination in crafting the ever-evolving strategies that can create a world where war is not an option. We know how much joy, strength and delight we experience in working together toward positive goals. May we make such choices with ever increasing frequency.

'We've created a formula for ongoing war' – James Phipps

red avatar

I'm a former US soldier and company commander of infantry and tank companies. I was also a logistics and more often an operations staff officer. The sad reality is that war is inevitable as long as we spend billions on programs and war toys for generals and admirals that aren't needed.

Many if not most of today's military leaders are much better politicians than leaders in battle. They are not Monty or Patton or Rommel and as a result make poor battle decisions based on politics not tactics thus lengthening dumb wars in the first place. Another factor is that unlike FDR, who had several sons in the Pacific and in Europe in World War II, none of the leaders have any personal stake in the wars that they are pushing for.

A continuing problem is the expenditure of GNP on weapons and military. This allows large countries to overrun smaller countries rather easily. Add the nuclear development worldwide, it gets very ugly.

The corporate media owned by a few corporations at least in the USA control the news that they want put out there. Government in turn works with these same corporate news entities to present what issues they want and do not want in the news. It is a symbiotic relationship that limits the news that we see. The result is the death of what we in democracies remember as what used to be the 'free press'.

Put all of this together and you have a strong formula for ongoing war.

'Fear creates war' – Jack Lee

Jack Lee. Photograph: Guardian

War is inevitable for a number of reasons.

First, it's big business. Just as the first rule of commerce is to make your own market, the first rule for weapons manufacturers is to make, or be involved in the process of making wars occur. President Eisenhower made it clear in his last speech as president that we should fear the 'military industrial complex'. The reasons are obvious: they have an agenda, and it's to make money.

Secondly, human nature will always create wars. Conflict is as much part of human nature as it is any animal's: we know and like peace, but humans inevitably fight over land, resources, food, and the chance to reproduce, just as any animal does in nature. Essentially, the root of all human conflict is fear: fear that there won't be enough to go around. And that fear manifests as a desire to be in control. When a sense that "the other party" has control, then the desire to wrestle control from that other party comes about.

All conflict occurs across a spectrum. At the immediate level it's between two people, such as a fight over a parking space, mate, piece of property or sum of money. On a global level it's still a fight between two, or a small number of people – the leaders – but large numbers of people are involved to fight them.

On a more esoteric or philosophical level, I look upon war as social flux. It's an inevitable consequence of human beings existing and surviving together on a planet with limited resources and limited space. War is the social and political equivalent of an extreme weather condition, such as a tornado, hurricane or cyclone.

'War is governed by states, not individuals' – Michelle Balaev

Michelle Balaev Photograph: Guardian

Of course war is a choice. John Horgan is right that war is not biologically driven. No average American would say, 'Yes, please produce more nuclear warheads! I love nuclear warheads!' We all recognize the absurdity of war in our lives today yet feel helpless to prevent it.

There is no reason for war. What reason would rationalize the killing of children, whether the child be a 17-year-old boy dressed in the military uniform of his nation-state blown to bits by an IED or whether the child be an 8-year-old boy picking fruit in a field who becomes 'collateral damage' from an airstrike on 'rebels hiding' near his field?

Why not have a sporting event to vet disagreements? Let the nation-state get its anger and frustration out by non-lethal means: a soccer competition where thousands of people are not killed.

Rousseau was right on this point after all: War is not natural among individuals. When there is a war, it is governed by states, not civilians.

In the end, all the rules of war such as the Geneva Conventions (which aim to reduce suffering and civilian casualties) are in many ways hypocritical because soldiers are civilians. Thus, if taken seriously, the Geneva Conventions would prevent war. The boy dressed in army fatigues, the boy dressed in rebel fatigues are civilians underneath the wardrobe of the state. These individuals are not fighting each other out of personal dislikes and deciding on their own to use metal death pills against each other shot from a gun that forever silence the other's future. Rather, these individuals are being used to fight the wants of a sovereign power. Soldiers are civilians and their rights as civilians do not evaporate once they don the cloak of military power. Following this logic: War is therefore illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions which aim to protect civilians.

As long as war is seen as a tool to 'solve' problems, we will use it. We must change our mindset and it begins with each individual at a time.