Engineers must actively design systems to reduce conflict rather than treating peace as a political byproduct, according to a new perspective published today in PNAS Nexus. The authors — Guru Madhavan of the National Academy of Engineering, Nicholas M. Donofrio, formerly of IBM, and Asad M. Madni of the University of California, Los Angeles — argue that technical decisions regarding infrastructure determine whether societies move toward confrontation or cooperation.
The paper introduces “peace engineering” not as a new technical field but as a fundamental shift in professional practice. The authors contend that the profession faces a “forcing moment” similar to the historical adoption of safety standards following bridge collapses and the integration of quality controls through management systems like Six Sigma.
“Peace engineering is not a distinct discipline, but rather a mode of practice guided by civic purpose, measuring success by how design choices reduce conflict and reinforce stability,” the authors write.
The dual nature of technology
The perspective highlights how modern technology’s dual nature complicates this mission, as systems designed for connection can easily become tools of division. The authors point to satellite internet services like Starlink, which shifted from connecting rural classrooms to enabling battlefield communications.
They also cite Israel’s Iron Dome as an example of engineering at its most precise, noting that such protective systems arise from violence and their contribution to peace depends on whether they reduce escalation or merely shift harm elsewhere. Conversely, the authors note the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as an example of “engineering as diplomacy,” where political rivalry was translated into specific design rules for dams and canals.
To navigate these challenges, the authors propose three intertwined dimensions for peace engineering: competence, capability, and character. Competence requires building systems that endure under stress, while capability involves the foresight to anticipate how designs might be repurposed.
The third dimension, character, demands the willingness to bear the moral weight of design choices.
“Competence without character means infrastructure engineered to last—dams, grids, pipelines—but no one asks who controls it,” the paper states. “Capability without character means foreseeing that systems will migrate to conflict zones but building them the same way regardless”.
Technical and ethical debts
Neglecting these dimensions creates two forms of liability: technical debt, where easy fixes fail under siege, and ethical debt, where design choices exacerbate social divisions. Technical shortcuts may hold during calm conditions but collapse when infrastructure becomes a target, while infrastructure designed without regard for governance can turn into something to fight over rather than share.
To embed stability into daily life, the authors propose three systemic changes. First, procurement processes should reward projects that lower conflict risk, similar to how safety and environmental standards currently shape contracts. Second, technical education must address the broader consequences of engineering, pushing beyond classroom lectures to tough questions about who gains or loses from a design.
Finally, the authors call for the establishment of stable institutions for peace-focused engineering, moving beyond niche experiments to steady support from universities and industry.
“In a world in which every tool serves both harm and healing, peace becomes not the by-product of progress but its measure,” the authors conclude.
