Murderous

The most common form of killing associated through Militaristic Expression is warfare. Facts about War Warfare is a global epidemic and not specific to people groups. It is not rational for a variety of reason and it is cyclical in nature. Below, Glenn Paige sites some of the reasons why war is wasteful. • There have been about 350 wars of all kinds since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, which once and for all defeated Napoleon's lust for power. If this number fairly well represents the frequency of war in history, there have been nearly 13,600 wars since 3,600 B.C.1 • The toll of human misery measures around 30,000,000 direct battle deaths since Waterloo and 1,000,000,000 since 3,600 B.C.1a Then there are the uncountable deaths, the broken bodies and lives from the ravages and effects of these wars. • Nor has war abated. Not with civilization. Not with education and literacy. Not with burgeoning international organizations and communications. Not with the swelling library of peace plans and antiwar literature. Not with the mushrooming antiwar movements and demonstrations. In the 25 years after World War II, for so many the war to create and insure peace for generations, some 97 internal and international wars occurred. Total deaths about equal those killed in World War II. On any single day during these 25 years slightly more than 10 internal or international wars were being fought somewhere.1b • Nor is war increasing. Although there are ups and downs in the intensity and scope of warfare, the historical trend is level: a little more than six major international wars per decade and 2,000,000 battle deaths. Around this trend there are at least three cycles of warfare, showing different peaks around every 10, 25, and 50 years.2
 * Solving The Military problem**

• //Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children….This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.8//

• An example of what has been termed a “colossal waste” of resources is the cost of the United States nuclear weapons program alone from 1940 to 1996 of 5.821 trillion dollars.9

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.” — The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000 http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#WorldMilitarySpending







In sum, then, the way of determining the common aspects of war and peace is through social philosophy, analytic theory, and empirical science. But not as separate ways heaping disparate elements together. Rather as a whole which combines them in some unified picture of ourselves, society, conflict, war, peace. In the final analysis, then, the epistemological problem is to artfully paint such a picture. One which will be a communication between our intuition, reason, and experience. (Paige)

//I am not seeking to understand war out of scientific curiosity. I am devoted to ending war. I was a pacifist in my youth and my life since has been an inner struggle between the hatred of war and the reality of contending interests and powers, aggrandizing leaders and states, and of aggressive antidemocratic and totalitarian ideologies. I simply cannot confront the reality of Hitler's cold-blooded execution of six million Jews and accept the pacifist argument that no war is justified. (Paige) Nor can I similarly accept the enslavement of tens of millions by communist leaders and their wanton extermination of many more millions than even Hitler killed. (Paige) Nor can I argue that the risk of war is totally unacceptable and that we should unilaterally disarm, leaving ourselves and the rest of the world vulnerable to similar enslavement. The problem as I see it in the world of 1978 is how to minimize the risk of war, especially nuclear war, and still protect what freedoms we have against aggressive totalitarianism (Paige)// o caused by opposing interests and capabilities (specific sociocultural differences and similarities between the parties), contact and salience (awareness), significant change in the balance of powers, individual perceptions and expectations, a disrupted structure of expectations, and a will-to-conflict; o aggravated by sociocultural dissimilarity, cognitive imbalance, status difference, and coercive state power; o inhibited by sociocultural similarity, cognitive balance, status similarity, decentralized or weak coercive state power; o triggered by perception of opportunity, threat, or injustice; or by surprise. • In addition to the above general causes of Conflict Behavior, nonviolent conflict behavior and low-level violence are: o aggravated by cross-pressures; o inhibited by system polarity (centralization of coercive power), and a stable status quo. • In addition to the above general causes of Conflict Behavior, violence (including war) is: o caused by authoritarian and totalitarian states, status quo disruption, and confidence in success; o aggravated by system polarity (centralization of coercive power), Big Power intervention, weakness of the status quo power, credibility at stake, and honor at stake; o inhibited by cross pressures, internal freedom, strength of the status quo power, and world opinion.
 * • International Conflict Behavior is:**

• **In addition, war is:** o //uniquely aggravated by power parity; o uniquely inhibited by power disparity. • The necessary and sufficient cause of international conflict behavior, violence, and war is a// disruption of the structure of expectations between the parties. Chapter 17 now focuses on the ending of conflict and states seven empirical propositions. The evidence given in its Appendix 17A supports the following. • //Conflict will end when a mutual balance in the interests, capabilities and wills of the parties has been achieved. This psychological equilibrium in the minds of the participants is the only necessary and sufficient condition for ending conflict behavior.// • **The conditions otherwise facilitating, easing, hastening the end of war are domestic opposition, consistent expectations of the outcome between the parties, shift in military power, and ideological devaluation of the conflict.** Chapter 18 finally concludes this empirical Part by extracting from field theory and the previous volumes the propositions concerning the nature of international conflict. The evidence provided in Appendix 18A to the Chapter supports the following: • At the highest level of abstraction, international conflicts are independent, helixical, uncorrelated with cooperation, and independent of internal conflict behavior. • Wars are state specific, cyclic, neither increasing nor decreasing in trend, and their peaks are correlated with the peaks in internal war. __The Conclusion__ The final Part VI has two purposes. One is to consolidate the propositions presented in the previous Part, in Vol. 2: The Conflict Helix, and in Field Theory Evolving into a set of primary empirical propositions. These are presented in Chapter 19, which asserts the following. • Overall, for conflict (international, internal, interpersonal) the empirical conclusions are that: o disrupted expectations cause conflict behavior; (b) power shapes conflict; o freedom minimizes violence; o cooperation and conflict behavior are independent, o change produces conflict; o conflict takes place in a situation; o individual perceptions and expectations condition conflict; o and sociocultural distances affect conflict. • These empirical conclusions get their meaning and substance from a perspective on conflict, which is: o conflict is a process of establishing a balance of powers and associated structure of expectations; o peace, harmony, and cooperation are a structure of expectations congruent with a balance of powers; and o within a closed system conflict tends to become less intense and frequent and peace more enduring. Finally, Chapter 20 concludes Volumes 1-4 by distilling all into the following few basic principles.20 • Psychologically, we are individuals. Our perceptions are subjective. We behave to achieve, particularly to enhance his self-esteem, and our expectations of the outcome guide this behavior. And we are responsible for this behavior (we have free will). • Interpersonally, through conflict we negotiate a social contract. Now, we communicate as a field of expression, and produce effects. Our interpersonal conflict is then a means of communication and a balancing of these effects (powers)--an adjustment of expectations to power. Our cooperation then depends on this structure of expectations, and a subsequent gap between these expectations and power causes new conflict. But (other things being constant) in time this conflict will become less intense, peace more lasting. • Socially, power shapes conflict. Our interpersonal principles apply to societies, which are generally trisocial: three types of society congruent with three types of political systems, three types of conflict, and three types of peace. A gap between the status quo and power causes social violence. And the more government, the more such violence. • Internationally, peace is a social contract. International relations is a social field and an exchange society, in which violence does not occur between internally free states. War requires that at least one of the participants is authoritarian or totalitarian and then is a means for negotiating an alignment of the status quo with the balance of powers. (Paige)

__**Solutions to the Military/War relationship**__ Why Nature of the Military should change • Because Military’s are often the sole participants in warfare used as tools or “chess pieces” in lethal struggles for power, human societies need to recognize that the reckless endangerment of the lives of their citizens(both military and civilian) and the future citizens of their offspring are much too important to risk and that the devolvement to violence (when diplomacy fails)should be avoided at all costs. • This along with the ramifications to social/cultural /economic and limited environmental resources, makes war unacceptable even more so in the 21st century than ever before. • One cannot question the motives of military action without questioning the motives of governmental systems acting behind their military forces. • The nature of power and the role that the nation state plays in this equation is substantial • In a classic study, Deviance, Terrorism & War (1979)11 John Burton has argued that all violence from criminality to revolution, terrorism and war comes from the violation of universal human needs, thus it is in part due to the failure of our governing systems that violence occurs. • but for the purposes of focusing on Military involvement I will assume that these issues have been addressed to a degree that allows for drastic changes to occur. This alternative future suggests that two requisites have been met in the world of international relations as Paige suggests: 1.“Conflict will end when a mutual balance in the interests, capabilities and wills of the parties has been achieved. This psychological equilibrium in the minds of the participants is the only necessary and sufficient condition for ending conflict behavior. 2. The conditions otherwise facilitating, easing, hastening the end of war are domestic opposition, consistent expectations of the outcome between the parties, shift in military power, and ideological devaluation of the conflict.” (Paige) • Devaluation of conflict means that conflict still exists, therefore the military, in a world where war is no longer a viable option will still need to exist but with a new purpose. The name “Military” itself may eventually need to be changed in order to erase the negative connotations associated with the word that have plagued human history. • It is inconsequential whether these peace oriented forces are to be united around a common flag (such as the U.N.) or built up from independent people groups as long as there is an internationally agreed upon goal of non-killing as not just a viable option but a fundamental right of humanity. • The chief role of the New military service is to strive to begin to foster an era of International Peace through nonviolence, while seeking (moral and especially non-killing) strategies that continue to secure the interests of people groups/nations etc. This will mean that the way in which resources are acquired and how nations quantify progress must simultaneously change. • Not through suppressive and lethal military force or occupation, but through cultivating a world culture of peace through a combination of leadership, social service, public diplomacy, humanitarian aid and non-lethal self defense exercises in crisis situations. • Because interests will not change the goal is to find ways to allocate the correct resources (natural and manmade) cooperatively and settle disputes in peaceful ways. • Personal diplomacy should be highly valued in this new Military in an effort to build alliances with the world on a 1 to 1 level for a lasting and stable peace. Many of these goals already exist within the mission of the US Peace Corps. • This will help to eliminate social threats to peace including the feelings of social injustice, and inequality that breeds violent responses such as terrorism and asymmetrical resistance. • On a fundamental level the status quo should be to create a world where the common denominator is that people’s fundamental needs are being met on a daily basis. • In a post Industrial world this will be possible through a drastic de-centralization of government. Bureaucracies due to the need to conserve renewable resources will mean Peace becomes an imperative for survival taking high precedence to running highly organized resource-thirsty war-ready organizations (currently much of our financial resources are spent on what the military calls “readiness capabilities”). • It will also demonstrate that individuals (not nations) are capable of caring for and helping other nations in a global arena and the benefits of such actions greatly out-weigh the alternatives. • In this future Technology is used to force peace covertly. • Conventional weapons are phased out entirely and black-market situations are made difficult (but not impossible) through Internationally accepted ARMS treatises and by the use of advanced tracking, control and disarmament technologies. • The entire nature of the military from the ground up will be drastically altered including its hierarchy. With new goals and objectives from governments and individuals this leads to the need to change the nature of war entirely. When the fuel of war is finally abated then war can then begin to be redesigned into a diplomatic device with the purpose of achieving peace in light of some immediate threat to the new status quo (which is a culture of peace). War will become something entirely more humane, future conscious and dare I say it, Fun.

1. Redefining the Role of the Military 2. Redefining a typical Military Education 3. Redefining the Nature of War
 * My Structural solution to Changing the Nature of the Military has culminated into three categories**

If killing is no longer acceptable as a product of the human condition, the military must make drastic and immediate changes in order to reverse the damage it has caused and ultimately transform its role in all human societies. When researching other organizations that work towards an active and lasting peace I began looking into the US Peace Corps. Organizations like the Peace Corps represent a model for where the military should be headed. I liked their mission statement because they kept it simple: “In 1961, President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps to promote world peace and friendship. The Peace Corps' mission has three simple goals: 2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served. 3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.”//** What surprised me is how much the peace corps is about instituting a culture of public diplomacy which should be the chief generative force in all the new Military’s of the world. Military education already consists of a broad training about geopolitical systems, history, geography and cultural etiquette. A new Military could specifically focus on goals that the Peace Corps has been working towards since 1961 but with an exponentially larger budget/resources and with the aided advantage of an existing infrastructure of geographically advantageous positioning. 1.The first difference is that a large portion of resources will be devoted to the application of peacekeeping and personal diplomacy “in the field” (replacing indoctrination of war theory, and strategy)this leads to trust and better chances at forming cooperative alliances as opposed to violently seizing control of nationalistic interests. 2.The second difference is that following Glenn Paige’s suggestion there will be no weapons designed to kill so Military in this alternative future will be using non-lethal compliance devices in order to resolve conflicts when all else fails. In a perfect world a 1 to 1 ration would mean that any non-lethal device would be equally as effective as a conventional weapon. In reality arms manufacturers have a lot of catching up to do both defensively and offensively. Dissolving titles that Excuse Violence** • The Titles associated with the Military because of all the burdens associated with them should be transformed to reflect a culture of peace. • Societies should also reinvestigate the hierarchical order of their Military organizations to instill a sense of cooperation and democracy. • This encourages taking into consideration a wide variety of perspectives in decision making exercises. • Much of the world uses an antiquated hierarchical system in its Military organizations which has its roots in the Roman system that had proven to be one of the most effective and violent cultures of all time to the point where killing was synonymous with entertainment. It was adopted because up until now Power is being equated with military force • ( not surprisingly then that our own culture is not far from the point as the Romans were 2000 years ago). • This means a breakdown of chain of command thinking that does not promote individual decision making is necessary. • While protocol and hierarchy will still exist, because the focus is now peace the entire vocabulary for how ranks of individuals address each other and how their subsequent actions are controlled should be different. • Humans have proven for thousands of years that they can easily default when in crisis situations to behaving according to an established hierarchy with the justification that they are working to re-establish, destroy or create a social order. • fear of acting outside of that hierarchy may prove an effective deterrent in itself for preventing acts of violence that lead to killing.
 * 1.__Redefining the Role of the Military__**
 * //1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
 * There are two major differences though in the New Military.

Military Education • The US Military does an excellent job in preparing its students for the real world. • The real world however is a world of violence, warfare and death. • In a world where these issues are no longer the focus (or the goal) however; Military education could be expected to be drastically different. • In a future where the Military is now an organization that works to promote international peace and has billions of dollars funding it, it might not be a bad idea to suggest compulsory military education for all citizens

• Part of a Military Education is to be trained to think of the opponent whether known or unknown impersonally as “The enemy”. As far as human history as existed there has probably been an Enemy especially when dealing with International conflicts. These issues were only seriously dealt with during times like the civil war where the situations was brother fighting against brother and it was originally believed that a civil war would not happen specifically because of this. • This thinking though stems from a mutual distrust of people groups and their intentions and throughout history unfortunately much of that mistrust has in fact been justified. (though this is still no excuse for killing) • The problem is that the traditional soldier is always viewing their enemy as a perpetually untrustworthy and hostile opponent. • This is understandable because #1 it is a condition for survival in a violent system and #2 the enemy is expected to be receiving the exact same education. The problem is despite all of this training as Paige states the evidence is that people don’t inherently want to kill each other. • If the future is built on this base, it might be a good idea for military education to be compulsory. For in many regards a military education can be more well rounded than a traditional one. In an environment of discipline students can focus on learning history, politics, international relations, and psychology in a way that the military understands prepares students to actually use in the real world. Indeed The “discipline” itself within military education may change from one of perceived threat to one of reward for progress. • The result is a new “Academy” that cultivates the minds and bodies of its students to be leaders in a world where peace is the ultimate goal. The more individuals that understand this, the more control we will have over our political processes and ultimately the shaping of our world. • What this means at home is that the new Military actively pursues certain attributes of civil service that already exist. • The importance here is building a society that reduces social inequality and provides equal opportunities for everyone (which I inherently believe will quell violence in the long run). • A good example is the army core of engineers or National and Coast guards that focus on defense and disaster relief/domestics etc. • These institutions don’t necessarily promote democracy as much as they are about maintaining the infrastructure. • But the future military might do more than maintain but call on professions such as engineering, architecture and political science to help guide the infrastructure to reflect a more peaceful society for everyone. (this has implications for deep cooperative flow of information between professional groups) International Corps • Compulsory “Military” education may be a way for all individuals to get a positive world education and positive world experience by travelling (increasing the collective knowledge) and learning to promote the positive values of democracy in peaceful ways. I am thinking more of how European citizens do this naturally after high school. • In many cases this compulsory education can be declined as well due to conscientious objection etc. The more citizens that take part in this gain an understanding of a Universal culture of peace which will frame their worldview. • In a world where warfare is unacceptable there will still be an enemy (perhaps this phrase has too many negative connotations as well and needs to be dropped) but the nature of education in regards to this enemy will also be different. • The fundamental difference in the training at the new Military Academy is that the enemy is now seen as the worthy “opponent”. • The opponent will be viewed as someone who is perhaps vehemently opposed to the views, beliefs and behaviors of the soldier(another antiquated term) but still that resolve does not mean that the opponent deserves or desires death of said soldier. • When all else fails the final recourse should be levels of non-violent action resulting in flight response or if all else fails the use of non-lethal weaponry which will still be heavily discouraged but may be necessarily to preserve loss of life. The goal is to get the soldier (another phrase that needs to change) to regard killing as morally incomprehensible and thus more interested in preserving peace (and life) and solving conflict by an arsenal of non-lethal weapons than lethal ones. • This is done by humanizing conflict to the point where people can’t imagine harming another because we have removed all of the technology (psychological masks) that allows us to isolate ourselves from the act of killing another human being. • It is suggested that this be done covertly in order to not appear to be forcing people into compulsion it should appear “normal”.
 * __2. Redefining Military Education.__**
 * National Corps and International Corps " Working to Create Social Equality at Home and Abroad"**

Something that has always made militaries different from other groups of armed peoples is their organization, their homogeneity (not necessarily in race but in dress), and their use of intimidation and fear (coercion) to accomplish tasks without ever pulling a trigger. But even this may be seen as adding to the culture of violence. Part of this is because of the split between military psychology and civilian psychology. One of the greatest titles that needs to be dropped is that of the “soldier”. Because in our current system soldiers have the right to kill. • A new military should of course be protected (by nature their peacekeeping work will not come without problems especially in the transitional period). The appearance of how our peacekeepers protect themselves must not be inherently aggressive or in any way promote a culture of violence. • Thus, until there is truly no need for protection there will be a time of transition both psychologically and physically between the soldier and the peacekeeper. • But currently our military and governments are structurally tied to “mini cold war thinking” as paige suggests the wasteful of diverting precious economic, scientific, and ecological resources into gaining strategic advantages the over other militaries (and nation states) or else trying to create alliances and vying for power in a violent system • (this also includes intelligence gathering and agencies associated with covert operations) (this brings up questions about a completely different type of soldier). • This is the negative side of human competition and the reason why we are stuck in a spending spiral for better warplanes, better camouflage and better weapons. • It is not an argument that we shouldn’t have these things but it is an argument that we should rethink the image that we are presenting to the world and why we are doing these things. • Societies need to reconsider how these technologies can be used to further peaceful responses to our presence as opposed to a response of fear of colonization or occupation due to our superior land, air, and sea or space power.
 * __Psychological Transformation from Mercenary and Soldier to Peace-keeper__**

• Wargames are a large part of what culminates in the education of students of military training. • Traditionally they are seen as the ritual that in many cultures Military’s continues the tradition of passing from boyhood into manhood. • While it could be argued that this is a patriarchal system (and inherently aggressive etc) I believe the inherent problem is not the ritual but the subject which is war. • Ultimately these tactical exercises are seen as a way to test all of the skills that the students have accumulated through a period of basic training. • It is also a way of training a soldiers mind to be able to imagine himself in a battle scenario where the framework give him or her license to kill another human being. • Ultimately it is a way to indoctrinate someone into the culture of war • The other reason why I suspect that this is what a soldier’s education culminates in is because the military wants them in the peak of readiness to be able to implant them into various situations that run on violence throughout the world. There is of course a culture of violence present in these situations with the weaponry and aggression, but there are also other human elements that are not inherently bad. War-games also teach survival and crisis management, tactics, cooperation, psychology, communication skills (verbal and nonverbal) competition, trust and courage, and critical thinking arguably many of the best traits humanity has to offer. Unfortunately the framework for all of these admiral abilities is to utilize them within a diplomatic strategy that necessitates resolution by way of a specified time of bloodshed anarchy and chaos. Contrarily, this type of intensive training within a peace centered framework might produce some pretty interesting results.
 * Wargames.**

In a new Military Education Critical thinking, cultural sensitivity, psychology and decision making exercises should become as important as War games and War Theory are today. In fact in many ways they should replace the archaic practices of learning how to kill and be transformed into practices of learning how to disarm, positively coerce, mediate and if all else fails resolve conflicts through non-lethal engagement. Ironically, historically warfare has had the positive effect of forcing people groups (who might not normally associate together) into cooperation in dire situations that encourage social progress (think race relations during Vietnam war, or the forming of alliances during World Wars) and instill a mutual fear and a distaste in that generation for war (the distaste often varies based upon the justification of the war). Unfortunately, the context in this situation is still to dehumanize and kill other human beings in the process, and for the reasons listed above the distaste for war doesn’t seem to translate to following generations so in that regard war is un-futuristic. My solution, redefine war. Since 2003, the Control Arms Campaign has been calling for a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a legally binding international instrument, which will draw together and consolidate states’ current obligations under international law. If properly implemented, such an ATT would reduce the human cost associated with the proliferation of conventional arms. It would prevent unscrupulous arms suppliers finding the weakest point in the supply chain, and ensure that all arms exporters and importers are abiding by the same high standards regarding the use, management and transfer of arms, leading to a more secure world. http://www.controlarms.org/en/arms-trade-treaty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqVLVOTQt4&feature=channel_page • 8 million firearms produced every year. 1 million of those are lost or stolen every year. • Non-lethal self defense and coercion devices become the main research technology of arms dealers and weapons manufacturers. • New technology should be used to discourage old technology, gun locks have moved from mechanical to biological (finger print based) I believe it could go a step further with genetic locks to existing conventional weapons. • The types of devices used for Peace keepers would have varying levels of lethality. Even ceramic or rubber bullets can kill for example new technologies developed to stop detain or deter violence are necessarily to enforce a culture of peace. • http://science.howstuffworks.com/liquid-body-armor2.htm
 * War Technology**
 * ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM INFRARED DEFENSE DEVICES LIQUID BODY ARMOR (FERROFLUIDS)**

__**Warfare.**__ • As mentioned before the preparation for war puts students in a mindset for engaging in violence and prepares them to disconnect to certain amiable qualities of humanity and engage in horrible acts of violence. • In this environment decisions must be made quickly and a certain aspects of normal humanity must be ignored • This often results in post traumatic stress disorder, rage, depression, suicide, dementia, murder, and alcoholism) the list goes on and a whole host of problems that develop when trying to re-insert an individual back into “normal” society become prevalent. • A new Definition of War • Thus for war to change, the structures as mentioned must be transformed, after this occurs we can realistically begin to think of war in new terms. • It is unlikely that we can so easily scrub the term “War” as we can with military systems because in hierarchies names can change easily as they aren’t the most important factor. • But. War does not have to be about killing, that purpose can be forgotten over time altogether and it doesn’t even have to be about violence. I propose a future where war is about the positive aspects of human competition and is still a function of diplomacy. Because different people groups are at different stages of development war will always be asymmetrical if we look at it in regards of force. But if we look at it in regards to playing a game for example the rules might change. The possibilities are endless but I would suggest a few or rather combinations of each that might be useful.

• If war were all about strategy like playing chess, or shogi (depending on your background) the detachment from human involvement would benefit everyone. • Ironically technology seems to be pushing in that direction with the creation of intelligent war machines (unmanned aircraft etc) that take the human out of the equation as a physical presence on the battlefield. • The problem is that #1 the target of these technologies is still humans (and involves killing). And #2 everyone doesn’t have the same tech. • If machines were used to fight our wars for us (assuming we have to have war) no one would have to die. • This doesn’t solve the issue of humans just imposing a warlike nature on machines or destruction to the environment which could be worse or better with machines fighting.
 * 1 Caricaturize war**

I think a true futures perspective would be to think of war as a game that doesn’t incorporate violence at all. The goal of the war would be to solve difficult problems that take into light the needs for of the current situation and that of future generations. Creating a disincentive to destroy valuable future resources and cultural relationships could be heralded as a new way to look at war.

• It would be a game that has rules that set the playing field (virtual or physical) and everything else equal so that no one has an advantage. • The “weapons” would be diplomacy, tactics and strategy, trade and all the other lessons that military students learn from training and real world experience so that there is in fact no separation from civilian and peace keeper psychologically or otherwise. • If it is somehow possible to separate in all ways the human element from warfare (physically, psychologically) as an exercise that creates great pain and loss, the meaning of war could change altogether.

• During these times of war however peace-keepers rely on the tools that they have learned to dispel violence and to encourage and promote an environment of peace and mutual understanding while the new war is being “fought”. I see it as society as a whole, working towards a peaceful goal instead of being herded into a sheep gate by a few men with stars on their hats. • In fact there is a direct correlation between this game-strategy and ritualized warfare altogether in that in a truly non-violent non-killing society the then ritualized practices will be inherently non-violent as well in order to promote smooth, and peaceful transformations of power structures. Again this kind of warfare can only be fought in a world where many conditions are “perceived” as equal for a large majority of the population, eliminating the element of social injustice/inequality etc.

More importantly this type of war would allow normal life to continue with virtually no “state of war” to be declared to create anxiety and a cycle of fear, intelligence gathering, and reactionary decision making fueled by fear. This allows culture to develop unscathed and creates less of a chance of new prejudices being formed about different people groups due to the high costs of war.



__Possible Future of war. Nonviolent Competition?__ But with a peaceful focus on competition and reaching compromises. The winners and losers would have to accept the outcome of the “war” based on verification of terms. To me this represents the poker analogy. In this system there is a lot of symbolism and there may be tension for the players involved because they realize that their decisions carry political weight. But at the end of the game someone always accepts loss and someone always wins (usually peacefully). It would be great if war were to become a type of game entirely with each group cheering for their side (think in a huge football stadium) with non-violent (though intense) competition being the determining factor. Nationalistic, or individual interests become projected onto a symbolic but peaceful playing field. Again with the necessity of all things being equal the system would have to work in a way that allows for total transparency (probably through the use of advanced technology) but at least this approach seems to encourage non-killing resolutions. A further solution and perhaps a quantum approach would be to mix groups who are on teams in this “game” from various people groups (jury duty example) in order to produce even more diverse and varied solutions to problems.Links http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE6.HTM http://www.controlarms.org/the_issues/movers_shakers.htm**
 * http://www.sipri.org/ Stockholm institute for peace research