War itself is justifiable only on principles of self-preservation:
I have little faith in the theory that organized killing is the best prelude to peace.
Is war an inevitable outcome of competing interests in a complex society? In other words, would war be the same even if human nature were very different? There are mathematical models of large groups working together that lead to conflict on a reliable basis. So there's a whole other view of war that is not psychological at all.
Friction is the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper.
One theory is that we will make war look so attractive that we undermine the deterrent. That's Never Never Land. What we have now would have been enough to deter Hitler. But we are talking in a different order of reality.
Holly's theory about the army," Sharon explained. And what is it?" Denise asked, intrigued. Oh, that fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
In the future as in the past, both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu will undoubtedly have a lot to offer.
War is only an invention, not a biological necessity.
war is, in some not yet entirely defined sense, a self-replicating pattern of behavior, possessed of a dynamism not unlike that of living things.
You don't attack the grunts of Vietnam; you blame the theory behind the war. Nobody who fought in that war was at fault. It was the war itself that was at fault. It's the same thing with psychotherapy.
