Is war inevitable in today's society ?

Peace can be achieved, but its almost impossible as the differences of opinion on this planet are still so strong.

Simply deciding not to never wage war is naive. Disarming or reducing production unilaterally puts the onus of trust on another entity to control the situation. From any standpoint thats potentially dangerous. Realistically disarmament needs to be a mutual agreement between all parties involved so that each individual state can have an equal portion of trust in the arrangement.

While hope is nice, it isn't a defense. The most important issue for world peace is the acknowledgement or recognition that not everyone is motivated in the same fashion. There are bad people out there that would abuse power. As long as people like that exist there can be no peace. And as long as well meaning people do nothing about those people there can be no peace.

I believe that the vision of peace a lot of people share in this day and age is more of an out of sight out of mind situation. As long as my country isn't involved, as long as we're not pulling triggers or taking hits then we're all good. Thats not true world peace. Thats avoidance.

The ability and the will to wage war needs to exist to either deter the weaker "strongmen" that would abuse peace and ignorance or to defend against the stronger bad leaders that have the will to act. The issue is making the proper choice on when to act.

That is the hardest issue. Its easy to react when threatened. Even a lot of people here who would say war is no longer needed would react to a threat if it happens. That alone undermines the strength of their opinions - its a wish and not a conviction. But the harder question to ask is to act before something happens. To do so will court great anger and the potential to become the villain. But at the same time look at the world today, look at the real oppression that takes place outside safe western borders. What would happen if the majority of the worlds powers unified and said no more? What if dictator x that stones gays and tortures women faced down the threat of force of all combined world powers? The preemption is it not? And would not striking down one of those leaders have the potential to end a threat that undermines world peace?

Partially. The second issue is economics. The west is relatively happy. Sure we complain daily about taxes or culture or what not, but in the end by and large we're doing fine. By comparison to other parts of the world that is. In other parts of the world hope is dinner, not the newest film or video game. Until the world is a solid economy where hope has evened out we'll still have the threat of war. Thats what fed WWII. If there is national despair then you'll have people willing to die for a cause or a new banner or simply because they don't hold their lives worth that much. Its in these situations where bad men rise and abuse that power.

World Peace isn't as simple as putting down our guns and hoping for the best.

Yes, that's what I thought. The liberal idiot, Jimmy Carter, isn't a credible source for anything, well other than his own idiot quotes.

I answered No, of course the question is so vague, it depends a lot upon how it's worded. If the wicked would just repent, there would be no war.

There's the theory of the morally just, defensive war, which I think U.S. has lost that claim, with endless (undeclared) wars and false flags like "9-11 was an inside job."--Alex Jones

Didn't Patrick Henry cry out, "Give me liberty or give me death?" Better to fight, than to be a slave and end up dying anyway.

Governments use violence and threat of kidnapping and putting people in cages (prisons) for daring to disagree with the wicked politicians. We must fight against that, hopefully, when possible, by peaceful means.

I also believe it the duty of man, to multiply naturally, without "birth control," within responsible marriage of course, in order to spread human life and allow far more people to experience life. The world is growing way too crowded for war. With the number of people alive who need some stable place to live and work, I do wish that clever peacemakers would soon prevail, and that man would do a better job subduing nature rather than each other. But until the "last" war, Armageddon, which some YouTube video made a very good case is necessary as it's a fight for freedom from the evil forces of tyranny, New World Order criminal elitists will likely be stoking up the war drums, because of their evil, greed, deceptions, for profits and lust of power, and their declaration in the Georgia Guidestones that we supposedly need to "MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE." Anybody with half a brain should realize, that's just not possible, we are 14 times the number, and there is no pleasant scenario how world population can ever become that sparse again. Their New World Order globalist utopia can not possibly work, and anybody who understands Bible prophecy already knows this. Man is too wicked to survive long with that much power concentrated in the hands of the very corrupt few. Power divided is power checked. "Absolute power corrupt absolutely." Man can improve his sphere of influence, but man can't build utopia on earth. People will soon figure it out, and be forced to fight against their evil globalist NWO depopulation agenda.

Indeed, and 'Undecided' option is in order. So I will choose 'Yes' as war is a needed tool, by the superpowers that be. For they are the ones that say 'Yes' to wars. And they, the superpowers, or 'The Puppet Masters' are able to justify their repression of the masses by being at war. Without an external enemy, the justification disappears.
If you've ever read the book 1984, it depicts warfare as a necessary tool and symptom of a totalitarian state. Oceania, one of the three superstates of the world, is in constant warfare with one of the other two. This is necessary, as warfare keeps citizens in constant confusion and fear – this helps to make them submissive to the control of the 'Party'. The 'Party' can then regulate supply and demand to ensure classism, and ultimately, power
Orwell wrote that:
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be doubt about the most enormous events. The calamities that are constantly being reported -- battles, massacres, famines, revolutions -- tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. Probably the truth is undiscoverable but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or for failing to form an opinion.
Thus....Ultimate Governing Power is achieved.