Every conflict follows its own course, and every peace its own design. Engineering shapes whether societies move toward confrontation or cooperation. That dual nature is evident in the divided legacy of nuclear technology to today's infrastructure-driven struggles. Every technical decision, from power grids to satellites and from semiconductors to supply chains, can fuel either contest or connection. Here, we ask whether peace can be engineered through professional competence, the ability to build systems that work as intended; through capability, the foresight to anticipate how they may be repurposed; and through character, the willingness to bear the moral weight of design choices. "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. We argue that durable peace requires addressing technical debt and ethical debt, where expedient fixes and divisive decisions erode trust. Drawing lessons from the institutionalization of safety and quality, we propose embedding conflict awareness into professional standards, procurement, and education. The goal is not to purge engineering's security functions, but rather to balance them with incentives for prevention and resilience. In a world in which every tool serves both harm and healing, peace becomes not the by-product of progress but its measure. Redirecting engineering toward stability may make peace its defining purpose. Can engineering truly foster enduring civic life, or remain bound to conflict?
Madhavan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.