Even if the entire world can be united under one government, conflict among political factions remains inevitable as differences in race, religion, culture, language, and political interests cannot be removed.

"A house divided by itself cannot stand." Lincoln's words proved to be prophetic as, two years after those words were uttered, the United States of America were splintered into two halves, ushering in one of the most deadliest conflicts in American history. It did not matter that the North and South both spoke English, believed in the same religion, and pledged themselves to the same constitution. Disagreements over one single institution were able dominate the scene of politics for a decade and ultimately break the country into two.

Government is a political institution; its power and scope do not extent to individual's beliefs, culture, religion, or language. Even if multiple ethnicities or multiples interests are ruled under one government, conflict is still inevitable. History has borne so much witness to this: be it the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, the Pashtun-Hazara conflict in Afghanistan, or Hindu-Sikh conflict in India, we can all see how one single government is unable to preempt internal conflict.

The weakness of a global government — the extreme diversity of the people over which it rules —, therefore, does not compensate for the only strength it seems to possess — centralization and strong military. Even if such a country is totalitarian and of a 1984 style, the individual's mind is still too great for a cowardly peace to remain.

The closest thing we currently have to world governments have made no attempt to abolish war, so there is no reason to suggest that a world government would abolish war

• The League of Nations, set up to prevent the First World War, did nothing to prevent war, and may have even contributed to the Second World War. The Manchurian Crisis, Abyssinian Crisis and Germany’s departure from the League demonstrated the League’s inability to prevent war, so it would have been a difficult exercise to try and abolish war completely.
• The UN has failed to abolish law since its inception in 1948, and has failed to prevent many wars and crises , notably the Rwandan Genocide and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
• Furthermore, abolishing war will not deter people from committing acts that will send countries to war, in the same way that slavery still exists long after its abolition.