Do you think world wars in the past happened due to lack of technological advancements in weaponry we've today?

The English long bow was a game changer. As was the musket against armored knights. Then the nuclear weapons gave us pause because any country can kill us all in 90 minutes.

Maybe the next weapons ( black hole generators, sub-atomic weapons, EMP’s will be dwarfed by the future stuff)

We always thought that the newest invention was so cool, at the time. Only to be replaced by newer killing machines.

Ditto @RedDeerGuy1 In fact the long bow had been so effective that a British General around the time of Waterloo advocated using it as an infantry weapon to replace the Brown Bess musket then in use. The idea was nixed. But I doubt any technology would dampen human enthusiasm for war. Sadly.

No.
When dynamite was invented, it was said that it would put an end to war. It didn’t
When the machine gun was invented, it was said that it would put an end to war. It didn’t.
Wars happened, no matter the technological advancement because people are, generally speaking, stupid.
Atomic and hydrogen bombs are said to prevent war for the same reasons dynamite and machine guns did.
Yeah. Right.

Why do you think people invented weapons? It’s to get more advantage in a war.

And why do people have wars? Because at one point in history someone thinks violence is the only answer.

This is like saying I stab you because my knife isn’t sharp enough.

Honestly this statement is so backward I don’t know where you get it from.

No.

I don’t know where I got it from, I just felt like asking it. Thanks for your answers.