If one is a student of history, an undeniable truth pops right to the surface: We have spent a lot of time killing one another. Despite what anthropological apologists might prefer to believe about the past—that at some remote Edenic time we were all living in harmony while munching on nuts and berries—for the span of recorded history we have been locked into ongoing and deadly conflict. Viewed over the broad sweep of the centuries, many of these battles seem pointless or unnecessary because the issues that fueled them are beyond our current comprehension, but we sneer at the hot blood of our ancestors at our own peril. The madness, ignorance, greed, and lusts of both individuals and crowds still fuels our beliefs and actions, and this will be true no matter how much the chickenhearted and scolding might wish it to be otherwise.

To be surprised by the prevalence and deadliness of history’s wars requires one to be deliberately blind to human nature. Except for that slice of humanity that hides itself in limited and limiting academic enclaves where everyone cruises around with a mocha latte on their way to a lecture, a committee meeting, or a yoga class, the reality of life is sharp-elbowed competition for wealth, prestige, power, and sex that drives both economic growth and alcohol sales. Because people will invariably group together by ethnicity and religion to protect themselves and those whom they love, this is particularly true in countries where arable soil is scare, the ecosystem is unfriendly, and borders are hard to secure. Killing your neighbors in the next valley becomes a normal part of life—and imagining it can be different is an invitation to remove yourself from the gene pool.

A presumption of the peaceful intentions of others is a luxury belief, and this explains why affluent democracies have been shocked and confused by the problems that come along with opening their doors to tribalized non-Westerners who view soft-hearted liberals as exceedingly easy prey. The brutal attitudes of their ancestors do not disappear when some wide-eyed woman hands them a housing voucher and a free cell phone. Because these immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are either unprepared to work or simply uninterested, assimilation has fallen by the wayside and invasion has become the dominant vibe, so civil war could be coming to countries across Europe sooner than we might imagine, unless the native population is simply willing to be quietly replaced as their dominant societal group over the span of the next few decades.

This same process has played out—and is playing out today—on a global level. Land, oil, water, and mineral resources are limited, but our world’s population has tripled from 3 billion people to 9 billion people just since 1960 and is exploding at a rate that is expected bring us to a very crowded planet of 9 billion people in only another 20 years or so. The wars that are on the horizon will, in a great many cases, be wars of survival, and these will be fought with weapons of cold and efficient destructiveness by soldiers using launch codes instead of steel lances.

Given that wars are inevitable and normal, we must also keep in mind that the consequences of wars are unpredictable, and the “experts” who prognosticate on the outcomes are expert only at guessing in a manner that seems comfortingly reliable. When the war in the Ukraine began a few years ago, few would have guessed that cheap cardboard drones would be knocking out Russian tanks and flipping the strategic equation on its head. The recent capture of Venezuelan President Maduro by American Special Forces, which was done with a precision and ease that shocked the world, was unimaginable only the day before it happened. Today’s marquee war, one where American firepower is  quickly eviscerating the Iranian leadership and military, will either realign the power structure throughout that region for many decades or awaken the monster of jihad from its slumber and condemn the Middle East to endless rounds of bloodshed and retribution—but all we know today is that the long-term effects are unknown.

However, none of the cruelty and uncertainties of wars will stop them from happening, and the shouting from the sidelines by those who cling to a belief where rules exist and negotiated settlements are always possible will remain both futile and foolish. Listening to the pundits, for example, gnash their teeth about “illegal wars”, it is hard not to shake one’s head at their naïveté. In truth, the difference between wars that are legal compared to those that are illegal is same as the difference between Stage 4 brain cancer and Stage 4 rectal cancer—semantics will not change the outcome. People will die, infrastructure will be destroyed, civilian populations will be terrorized, and the condemnations of the wars will be empty theatrics.

The other bit of wordplay that has become popular recently is the idea that some (or perhaps all) conflicts are “wars of choice” that can evaded by, in essence, simply walking away. This is a seductive concept for many, but it forgets that bullies and tyrants find the weak and cowardly both pitiable and pleasantly vulnerable. The theocracy in Iran, for example, found it wonderful that President Obama chose to send them an airplane filled with cash rather than fight a war to stop their development of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorists. “Choosing” is often synonymous with “appeasing” and has a history of postponing wars rather than preventing them, which is a hollow victory at best.

The sad truth is that sometimes war is both unavoidable and, in fact, necessary. Trusting to good intentions has a habit of backfiring spectacularly, and wider and more destructive wars can be prevented before an enemy becomes too strong or cocky. Diplomacy is beneficial in certain circumstances, but sometimes a good punch in the nose is what is required.