The Professor is waiting in the seminar room with Johanna, Dorcas, and Ellen. As he looks at his watch with a little frown, the door opens and Nellie arrives with a visitor who has to duck to get under the top of the six-foot eight door frame. The visitor is a broad shouldered woman with a somewhat dark but freckled face, red hair done up in a bun, and is wearing a kilt, a brocaded shirt and vest. A broadsword, a heavy cudgel, and a slingshot hang from her belt, and over her shoulder are holstered two throwing knives. She is limping slightly. Nellie is similarly attired and armed but is sporting a large bruise on her face.

Johanna: (to Ellen) I thought Nellie was big, but this one must be over seven feet!

Professor: (rubbing his hands and brightening) Lady Mara, thank you for taking time from your busy schedule. Nellie, glad the two of you made it. Would you do the introductions, please?

Nellie: (indicating each in turn) Mara, these are Johanna, Dorcas, and Ellen. The professor you know. May I present Lady Mara Meathe, administrator, physician, and regular army officer.

Professor: You're a little late.

Nellie: We did a stick workout in the gym. Just time for one hit apiece.

Ellen: (looking at Mara skeptically) And which of the Professor's imaginary worlds are you from, dearie?

Mara: (turning sharply to Nellie, who suddenly grows pale) Is this sacred ground?

Nellie: (shuddering) I think we better assume that, Mara.

Ellen: What's that supposed to mean?

Mara: Our officers' schools are held under the sword truce of sacred ground.

Nellie: (glaring savagely at Ellen) Under those rules she's not allowed to kill you for insulting her as long as the course is in session.

Professor: (motioning everyone to a seat) Well, enough idle pleasantries. Today's topic is: "War in an information age."

Dorcas: There will always be wars. Only the means of waging them changes.

Johanna: I disagree. War is an unnatural condition. Human beings are naturally good and normally peaceful. Now we know the horrors of nuclear and biological warfare, there will never be major wars again.

At this, Mara laughs derisively.

Professor: Lady Mara, would you care to give us a thumbnail sketch of warfare on your home world since the nuclear age.

Mara: Are you sure it's all right?

Professor: This conversation is fictional, remember. You may speak freely.

Mara: Glad to, professor. In a nutshell, there hasn't been a single year free of war in the two centuries since. On my planet, the banning of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare, and gunpowder wasn't intended to eliminate war but to ensure that when soldiers fought they would have to do so with what they could hold in their own hands. Swords, sticks and knives are the weapons of choice. Some like the battle-axe, but I find it cumbersome.

Professor: When was the last time nuclear weapons were used?

Mara: At the end of the war with Japan in 1750. There haven't been two decades without a major conflict, and no year without several minor ones since. Biologicals were used a few times, but no one has fired atomics in that span.

Johanna: (shocked) Your leaders still send people to war?

Mara: No, they take them. A noble who declares war on a neighbour must personally lead the troops into battle. Only the First Lord at Tara is exempt, and that only because he is not allowed to declare war, just to respond to breeches of the peace.

Johanna: (sarcastically) What about the women? Do they stay at home and cook for their husbands?

Nellie: Mara is a high government minister, Johanna, and a major general of the army. Woman on Ortho have equality.

Johanna: (horrified) You don't mean you're a combat officer?

Mara: Of course I enter combat. I told you. Leaders go first; they never send.

Johanna: You've killed people with that sword?

Mara: Certainly. Do you think I use it to shave my legs?

Johanna: What if you get wounded or killed?

Mara: There are army physicians, of which I am one. But, if the Lord of Heaven has done with counting out my days, then who am I to object?

Ellen: (disbelievingly) How many people have you killed in combat?

Nellie: Careful, Ellen. An honourable soldier does not boast, but in Mara's case I know it's around twenty. She has come close to being killed a couple of times herself.

Johanna: (incredulous) Men would kill a woman in battle?

Mara: No one has to take up the sword, but once you do, everyone's equal. In battle you kill or are killed.

Nellie: Isn't that what you and Ellen want, Johanna--equality? Don't you like the consequences?

Ellen: All right, all right. I'll bite. You're from a mythical world where you're a barbarian queen. How do you reconcile your apparent religion with being a warrior?

Mara: I am loyal to the Lord of Heaven, to the throne of Tara, to my family and sworn friends, and to the liege people sworn to me--in that order. Sometimes those loyalties require me to fight against injustice or despotism, or for the cause of an ally. I do my duty under Heaven.

Ellen: (grunting) Another Christian, but what happened to "love your enemies..."

Mara: "..and do good to those that hate you?" When you have the choice, you take the higher road, of course. In war, your duty is to win--but not at the cost of justice or honour.

Johanna: (stubbornly) There is no such thing as a just war.

Mara: You live on the world that spawned Hitler and can say such a thing?

Dorcas: There will always be those who believe the strongest must rule, even if they have to kill everybody else to get what they want. It is just to defend society against such.

Ellen: (smiling) There's an inconsistency in your story, Mara, dear. If soldiers on your imaginary world have to kill with their hands, why are you carrying a sling?

Mara: The sling and the throwing knives protect against a coward's attack on a defenseless person, or defend against a banned weapon such as a gun, gas, or bow. One who does or uses such things need not be treated with honour, and can be killed out of hand. A knife through the throat is quite effective. (Glancing around and spotting a wooden bust on a platform by the opposite wall, she turns to the Professor.) Shall I demonstrate?

Professor: Be my guest. That's why I brought it.

Nellie stands up, grinning, bows to Mara, strides to the bust and stands behind.

Nellie: Now suppose I were to draw a throwing knife.

Reaching over her own shoulder, she produces one. There is a breath of motion, a blur, and Mara's knife buries itself almost to the hilt in the throat of the wooden bust, rocking its platform slightly.

Johanna: (in a shaky voice) Nellie could have been hurt!

Nellie: Oh, nonsense, Johanna. We've practiced hundreds of times. Besides, Mara is a superb surgeon. She'd patch me up in a jiffy.

Ellen: (rising, reaching for the knife with both hands and giving it a good pull) Hey, I can't get this thing out.

Nellie yanks it out it with one hand and tosses it to Mara, who catches and re-holsters it in one motion.

Nellie: (grinning) Want another demonstration? Mara and I could go a couple of rounds with the sword if you like.

Ellen: No. I'll buy the proposition that you're somehow and somewhere the real thing. I just don't see how a society with an advanced enough science to have nuclear weapons could go back to using primitive swords.

Mara: These blades are the best product of the swordsmiths' profession, and scarcely primitive. Besides, it was a deliberate choice to limit weapons as part of the warriors' code. We found killing by proxy offensive. So the change is an advance, not a retreat.

Ellen: But what of those who can't or won't learn the sword? Where does that leave them?

Mara: Wearing a white shirt and the kilt of someone who can and will defend them.

Johanna: But, that is still rule of the strongest over the weakest. It's exploitation.

Nellie: On the contrary, the lord or lady to whom noncombatants owe allegiance has the sworn duty to protect them from exploitation and ensure their rights and freedoms. That's the only reason they carry the sword. It's the reason God ordained government, of whatever form.

Dorcas: Fallen human nature is corrupt. What if a noble fails in that duty and does exploit?

Mara: Then the liege covenant is broken, and those freed thereby can replace the base noble. If they are unable to do so, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of the nobility to do it for them.

Nellie: You didn't mention they also have a duty to kill the faithless noble.

Mara: I thought it obvious.

Ellen: Only the workers are fit to rule. No one's born noble.

Mara: Of course nobility isn't by birth. The most fit to inherit family responsibility takes the name and goes to Tara, whether it be the child of the previous lord, or of the village blacksmith. One is part of the nobility if one can and does fulfill its responsibilities.

Ellen: What about seniority?

Nellie: (when Mara looks puzzled) Sorry Ellen, there are no unions on Ortho. If someone tries to hang on to responsibility too long, one more capable will surely challenge and take it away.

Johanna: Yours is an information-based society?

Mara: It has been for over two hundred years.

Johanna: I would have thought in such an environment war would only be fought at a terminal on the network.

Mara: That happens, too. Nellie is my consultant in that line of work.

Johanna: It couldn't work. A standing army is an intolerable tax burden on society.

Mara: Local lords collect the difference between twenty percent of income and the up to ten percent that may have been given to the Church. Ten percent of that tax in turn is owed to the central government, but the cost of maintaining the prescribed army units is included, except during an aggressive or rebellious war of local making--then the domains pay troops out of their own pockets.

Dorcas: Is a soldier bound to the same lord for life?

Mara: If they swear to be, yes. Many officers prefer to hire out to whomever they wish.

Johanna: They work as mercenaries?

Nellie: Nominally all local units are subject to the crown of Ireland at Tara.

Ellen: (chuckling) I'll have to tell my aunt about this one. She'd get a kick out of a world where the Irish are in charge. She's always talking about how the English mistreated them for seven hundred years. (pausing suddenly) Say, how do you treat the English?

Mara: They are partners in the United Kingdom of the Emerald Isles.

Johanna: Is it a democratic partnership?

Ellen: Some countries elect a parliament to look after local government matters under the authority of the crown, but England is not among them. Her chief magistrate is Lord Kent.

Professor: Nellie, you act as summarizing prosecutor, and Mara you put on your brehon's chain. Give some examples of how military and criminal discipline is handled.

Nellie: Right. A local ruler stirs up a dispute with another noble and declares war, but stays home from the battle.

Mara: His troops refuse to go. They banish or kill him and install a new lord.

Nellie: An officer in the heat of battle kills the non-combatant historian recording the scene for the opposing side.

Mara: The guilty officer's troops suspend battle under a truce, execute the coward, supply a bard to replace the fallen one, recognize a new leader, then decide whether to continue the battle.

The Professor is waiting in the seminar room with Johanna, Dorcas, and Ellen. As he frowns at his watch, the door opens and Nellie arrives with a visitor who has to duck even more than her to get under the top of the six-foot eight door frame. The visitor is a broad shouldered woman with a somewhat dark, freckled face, red hair done up in a bun, and is wearing a kilt, a brocaded shirt and vest. A broadsword, a heavy cudgel, and a slingshot hang from her belt, and over her shoulder are holstered two throwing knives. She is limping slightly. Nellie is similarly attired and armed, and sporting a large bruise on her face.

Johanna: (to Ellen) I thought Nellie was big, but this one must be over seven feet!

Professor: (rubbing his hands and brightening) Lady Mara, thank you for taking time from your busy schedule. Nellie, glad the two of you made it. Would you do the introductions, please?

Nellie: (indicating each in turn) Mara, these are Johanna, Dorcas, and Ellen. The Professor you know. May I present Lady Mara Meathe, administrator, physician, and regular army officer.

Professor: You're a little late.

Nellie: We did a stick work-out in the gym. Just time for one hit apiece.

Ellen: (looking at Mara skeptically) And which of the Professor's imaginary worlds are you from, dearie?

Mara: (turning sharply to Nellie, who suddenly grows pale) Is this sacred ground?

Nellie: (shuddering) I think we better assume that, Mara.

Ellen: What's that supposed to mean?

Mara: Our officers' schools are held under the sword truce of sacred ground.

Nellie: (glaring savagely at Ellen) Under those rules she's not allowed to kill you for insulting her as long as the course is in session.

Professor: (motioning everyone to a seat) Well, enough idle pleasantries. Today's topic is: "War in an information age."

Dorcas: There will always be wars. Only the means of waging them changes.

Johanna: I disagree. War is an unnatural condition. Human beings are naturally good and normally peaceful. Now we know the horrors of nuclear and biological warfare, there will never be major wars again.

At this, Mara laughs derisively.

Professor: Lady Mara, would you care to give us a thumbnail sketch of warfare on your home world since the nuclear age.

Mara: Are you sure it's all right?

Professor: This conversation is fictional, remember. You may speak freely.

Mara: Glad to, Professor. In a nutshell, there hasn't been a single year free of war in the two centuries since. On my planet, the banning of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare, and gunpowder wasn't intended to eliminate war but to ensure that when soldiers fought they would have to do so with what they could hold in their own hands. Swords, sticks and knives are the weapons of choice. Some like the battle-axe, but I find it cumbersome.

Professor: When was the last time nuclear weapons were used?

Mara: At the end of the war with Japan in 1750. There haven't been two decades without a major conflict, and no year without several minor ones since. Biologicals were used a few times, but no one has fired atomics in that span.

Johanna: (shocked) Your leaders still send people to war?

Mara: No, they take them. A noble who declares war on a neighbour must personally lead the troops into battle. Only the First Lord at Tara is exempt, and that only because he is not allowed to declare war, just to respond to breeches of the peace.

Johanna: (sarcastically) What about the women? Do they stay at home and cook for their husbands?

Nellie: Mara is a high government minister, Johanna, and a major general of the army. Woman on Ortho have equality.

Johanna: (horrified) You don't mean you're a combat officer?

Mara: Of course I enter combat. I told you. Leaders go first; they never send.

Johanna: You've killed people with that sword?

Mara: Certainly. Do you think I use it to shave my legs?

Johanna: What if you get wounded or killed?

Mara: There are army physicians, of which I am one. But, if the Lord of Heaven has done with counting out my days, then who am I to object?

Ellen: (disbelievingly) How many people have you killed in combat?

Nellie: Careful, Ellen. An honourable soldier does not boast, but in Mara's case I know it's around twenty. She has come close to being killed a couple of times herself.

Johanna: (incredulous) Men would kill a woman in battle?

Mara: No one has to take up the sword, but once you do, everyone's equal. In battle you kill or are killed.

Nellie: Isn't that what you and Ellen want, Johanna--equality? Don't you like the consequences?

Ellen: All right, all right. I'll bite. You're from a mythical world where you're a barbarian queen. How do you reconcile your apparent religion with being a warrior?

Mara: I am loyal to the Lord of Heaven, to the throne of Tara, to my family and sworn friends, and to the liege people sworn to me--in that order. Sometimes those loyalties require me to fight against injustice or despotism, or for the cause of an ally. I do my duty under Heaven.

Ellen: (grunting) Another Christian, but what happened to "love your enemies..."

Mara: "..and do good to those that hate you?" When you have the choice, you take the higher road, of course. In war, your duty is to win--but not at the cost of justice or honour.

Johanna: (stubbornly) There is no such thing as a just war.

Mara: You live on the world that spawned Hitler and can say such a thing?

Dorcas: There will always be those who believe the strongest must rule, even if they have to kill everybody else to get what they want. It is just to defend society against such.

Ellen: (smiling) There's an inconsistency in your story, Mara, dear. If soldiers on your imaginary world have to kill with their hands, why are you carrying a sling?

Mara: The sling and the throwing knives protect against a coward's attack on a defenceless person, or defend against a banned weapon such as a gun, gas, or bow. One who does or uses such things need not be treated with honour, and can be killed out of hand. A knife through the throat is quite effective. (Glancing around and spotting a wooden bust on a platform by the opposite wall, she turns to the Professor.) Shall I demonstrate?

Professor: Be my guest. That's why I brought it.

Nellie stands up, grinning, bows to Mara, strides to the bust and stands behind.

Nellie: Now suppose I were to draw a throwing knife.

Reaching over her own shoulder, she produces one. There is a breath of motion, a blur, and Mara's knife buries itself almost to the hilt in the throat of the wooden bust, rocking its platform slightly.

Johanna: (in a shaky voice) Nellie could have been hurt!

Nellie: Oh, nonsense, Johanna. We've practised hundreds of times. Besides, Mara is a superb surgeon. She'd patch me up in a jiffy.

Ellen: (rising, reaching for the knife with both hands and giving it a good pull) Hey, I can't get this thing out.

Nellie yanks it out it with one hand and tosses it to Mara, who catches and re-holsters it in one motion.

Nellie: (grinning) Want another demonstration? Mara and I could go a couple of rounds with the sword if you like.

Ellen: No. I'll buy the proposition that you're somehow and somewhere the real thing. I just don't see how a society with an advanced enough science to have nuclear weapons could go back to using primitive swords.

Mara: These blades are the best product of the swordsmiths' profession, and scarcely primitive. Besides, it was a deliberate choice to limit weapons as part of the warriors' code. We found killing by proxy offensive. So the change is an advance, not a retreat.

Ellen: But what of those who can't or won't learn the sword? Where does that leave them?

Mara: Wearing a white shirt and the kilt of someone who can and will defend them.

Johanna: But, that is still rule of the strongest over the weakest. It's exploitation.

Nellie: On the contrary, the lord or lady to whom noncombatants owe allegiance has the sworn duty to protect them from exploitation and ensure their rights and freedoms. That's the only reason they carry the sword. It's the reason God ordained government, of whatever form.

Dorcas: Fallen human nature is corrupt. What if a noble fails in that duty and does exploit?

Mara: Then the liege covenant is broken, and those freed thereby can replace the base noble. If they are unable to do so, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of the nobility to do it for them.

Nellie: You didn't mention they also have a duty to kill the faithless noble.

Mara: I thought it obvious.

Ellen: Only the workers are fit to rule. No one's born noble.

Mara: Of course nobility isn't by birth. The most fit to inherit family responsibility takes the name and goes to Tara, whether it be the child of the previous lord, or of the village blacksmith. One is part of the nobility if one can and does fulfil its responsibilities.

Ellen: What about seniority?

Nellie: (when Mara looks puzzled) Sorry Ellen, there are no unions on Ortho. If someone tries to hang on to responsibility too long, one more capable will surely challenge and take it away.

Johanna: Yours is an information-based society?

Mara: It has been for over two hundred years.

Johanna: I would have thought in such an environment war would only be fought at a terminal on the network.

Mara: That happens, too. Nellie is my consultant in that line of work.

Johanna: It couldn't work. A standing army is an intolerable tax burden on society.

Mara: Local lords collect the difference between twenty percent of income and the up to ten percent that may have been given to the Church. Ten percent of that tax in turn is owed to the central government, but the cost of maintaining the prescribed army units is included, except during an aggressive or rebellious war of local making--then the domains pay troops out of their own pockets.

Dorcas: Is a soldier bound to the same lord for life?

Mara: If they swear to be, yes. Many officers prefer to hire out to whomever they wish.

Johanna: They work as mercenaries?

Nellie: Nominally all local units are subject to the crown of Ireland at Tara.

Ellen: (chuckling) I'll have to tell my aunt about this one. She'd get a kick out of a world where the Irish are in charge. She's always talking about how the English mistreated them for seven hundred years. (pausing suddenly) Say, how do you treat the English?

Mara: They are partners in the United Kingdom of the Emerald Isles.

Johanna: Is it a democratic partnership?

Ellen: Some countries elect a parliament to look after local government matters under the authority of the crown, but England is not among them. Her chief magistrate is Lord Kent.

Professor: Nellie, you act as summarizing prosecutor, and Mara you put on your brehon's chain. Give some examples of how military and criminal discipline is handled.

Nellie: Right. A local ruler stirs up a dispute with another noble and declares war, but stays home from the battle.

Mara: His troops refuse to go. They banish or kill him and install a new lord.

Nellie: An officer in the heat of battle kills the non-combatant historian recording the scene for the opposing side.

Mara: The guilty officer's troops suspend battle under a truce, execute the coward, supply a bard to replace the fallen one, recognize a new leader, then decide whether to continue the battle.

Nellie: The General of the Army stages a successful coup against the central government.

Mara: The coup leader is now First Lord, has to give up all his lands, money, and titles, and assume the responsibility of rulership. It's not a job many people want, by the way.

Dorcas: I thought you had a monarchy. You mentioned a throne.

Mara: The King was deposed almost sixty years ago and the nobles took over. Their obligation is to the principles behind the green chair, even though no one can sit in it for over a year yet because it's under an ill-advised ban.

Nellie: Suppose a coup fails, and the instigator escapes.

Mara: The Donal sends officers after the loser to kill or capture him. (hesitates) We had a case like that once where the coup instigator was allowed to escape, changed his name, rejoined the army as a lieutenant and eventually regained his honour. The senior officers know about him but no one ever turned him in to the government and now that the twenty-year ban has passed he could take back his old name if he wanted.

Nellie: A soldier runs away from battle.

Mara: Someone runs after him and kills him. That's not an ethical issue, Nellie, just the practical reality of fighting with swords.

Nellie: The House of Lords tries to abolish the army.

Mara: The people would rise up in rebellion against the house, kill them all, and replace them with ones with more sense. The same thing would happen if one of them tried to govern without the people's consent. The government is there to protect the people. They get very nasty when their security is threatened by abrogation of duty.

Dorcas: That's the theory, at least. I doubt if it's always like that in practice.

Mara: You're right. There have been despots among domain lords and even at Tara, but the high nobility is sworn to prevent such, and most take it seriously. Dictators don't live long.

Nellie: An officer challenges an enlisted trooper, or a lord deliberately provokes a fight with someone much less skilled.

Mara: The guilty party is dismissed from all positions of responsibility, dishonoured, and assigned to work as a field hand for one to three years.

Nellie: An officer or noble uses the position for self-enrichment.

Mara: The purpose of power is the fulfilment of responsibility. Abuses indicate high-handed and deliberate dishonour. Three to five years of field work.

Professor: Very good. We'll have a formal debate next week on the proposition "War may be waged justly." Ellen and Johanna have the positive side, Nellie and Dorcas the negative. Mara will be the judge. (noticing Ellen about to protest) Mara must judge fairly. If she didn't she would lose her brehon's chain, and sentenced to field work herself.

He dismisses class, and leaves. Mara turns to Ellen and Johanna.

Mara: The gym here's pretty good. How be I take you both on together in a couple of rounds unarmed? If I break any bones, I've got my medical kit along.

As observed in Chapter 1, new technologies have historically found many of their applications in he waging war. The modern military, like that in every age, carefully evaluates all techniques and develops some of its own for their potential to kill or to defend. The presence or absence of critical war-making technologies has changed the course of history too many times in the past to suppose that it will not happen again. This is actually the case in every war, for if combatants are technological equals, strategy may win the day, but strategy is a technique in its own right--that is, there is always a most efficient way to wage war in a given situation. In this century superior firepower much more than strategy has been the decisive factor in the major wars. However, in the 1960s, lightly armed and ill-trained young North Vietnamese guerillas took on the heavily armed and mechanized United States army and forced it into a humiliating retreat. Not so in the Gulf war with Iraq, where the United States overwhelmed Iraq with sheer military might.

In the 1970s and 1980s a rough balance of power was perceived to exist between Russia and the United States, and neither side wished to start a war that could not be won, or whose fighting might sterilize the planet, so strategy became paramount again. In the end, the United States essentially bankrupted the Soviet Union by raising the technology stakes to the point where the Soviet economy could not keep up. For a while, pundits hailed this as the end of history--the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy. That this was a foolish hope should have been apparent even then--there are several more countries (and possibly terrorist organizations) that have nuclear capability, and are willing and able to face off against each other or the United States. Thus, one cold war is over; but others have begun between other participants and in different parts of the globe.

There are several ways in which a balance of power in a stalemated confrontation can change as a direct result of new high technologies, or new appreciations of strategic technique. At least three kinds of scenario are possible, though some may be less likely than others.

It is now clear in the aftermath of the cold war between the United States and Russia that two nations cannot escalate military confrontation indefinitely. This is so for both military and economic reasons, for unlimited escalation eventually leads either to war or to the effective bankruptcy of one or both parties.

First, since there is little to be gained militarily by being the responder in a conflict, striking first in such a way as to obliterate the enemy provides the highest probability of survival. The cold war participants realized this, and designed their capability so that they could both survive a first strike and respond with enough force to obliterate the aggressor. This policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) takes away the strategic advantage of the first strike, but in the nuclear age has the consequence that any conflict has the potential to destroy all life on Earth.

Second, each technical and scientific advance that is applied to the making of war costs more than the last and, like medical costs, military ones have potential to bankrupt all nations that do not limit spending. The demise of the Soviet Union was brought about to a great extent by overspending on the military to the point of bankruptcy. Even though there is now much less chance of nuclear war involving Russia, the economic aftermath still could cause a catastrophe of global proportions--a depression from which it might take decades to recover. Such a result may well have been inevitable if the Soviets and Americans had continued on the course of the 1970s and 1980s; both were spending far beyond their means, and the following years saw many painful readjustments as the United States sought to balance its budget and trade deficits, and Russia struggled to feed its people and bring its economy up to date. None of these goals was achievable without large tax increases and massive reductions in spending--either by a general demilitarization, or by making sharp cuts in social programs.

The former communist nations had to do both, but any Western governing political party that emptied its citizens pockets, whether by taxation or social spending reductions, would quickly lose power to some other party, so it would appear that it is impossible for them to maintain military spending near historical levels for long without at least a major economic upheaval. Moreover, the larger the percentage of Gross National Product once committed to social programs, the smaller the ability for an all-out mobilization to fight a conventional war--though this consideration does not apply so much to a nuclear conflict.

The second possibility is that one side achieves a decisive advantage over the other. This result is possible if one side or the other succeeds in developing and deploying a (non-nuclear) technology that breaks down the stalemate dramatically and permanently in its favour. Such an outcome was possible in the Cold War--it would not be the first time a long standoff ended this way. Indeed, it could be argued that computerization was the trump card that made the technical lead of the United states insurmountable.

Possible candidates for future confrontations include the deployment of biochemical agents to render the other side impotent long enough for a conventional military takeover, or the deployment of orbital weapons capable of waging a decisive war and/or preventing any attack from the other side. However, the United States has a vast technological advantage in some areas such as computing systems, biochemical and physical research, and it is doubtful that other nations are currently in a position to employ any of them strategically and decisively. For their part, biochemical agents, such as new viruses, could not be confined to one territory, but would spread world-wide in a matter of days.

One relatively safe option might would be to deploy the "flying crowbar"--a smart , internally guided, chunk of rock or metal dropped from orbit to a pinpoint landing on missile and other military installations. In theory, such non-explosive devices could be made small enough to avoid detection and yet strike with such force as to destroy buried missile silos, such accuracy as to take out mobile ones, and in such numbers as to prevent retaliation. Indeed, the flying crowbar was probably a component of the proposed U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative. However, the ability of even the United States to utilize space in a cost-effective manner is in some doubt, so an effective space-based weapon or deterrent may be a long way off.

Neither can the expenditure of resources needed to gain decisive technological advantages be kept entirely hidden from the other side. For instance, the aggressor in a biological attack would have to inoculate its entire population with an anti-agent prior to launching the agent against the other side. Such an action could not be kept secret in the information age, and this fact alone seems to make this win-lose scenario unlikely--though not impossible.

Another win/lose scenario has one nation gradually gaining the upper hand in space, to the point where it could dictate terms to the Earth-bound losers. This strategy has its own risks, for here the aggressor would have to agree to short-term military spending cuts to free up money for space hardware, accepting temporary losses in ground level power in exchange for long-term total superiority. The nation that did this could be hailed as a peacemaker by the third world, while simultaneously pursuing a strategy that would eventually result in total domination. What makes an apparently passive strategy likely to succeed where an active one would not, is the tendency of people to overlook the obvious, and the desire, often shown in the Western democracies, to grasp peace at any price, or to pretend that an aggressor state is really a benevolent friend. In this version of the win/lose scenario, no war will be fought, but tyranny might triumph anyway--at least until its inherent instability eventually caused it to collapse.

It should also be noted that it is too early in the life of post-communist Eastern Europe to tell whether the cold war is actually over, or just in interregnum. It is still necessary to deal with the threat of nuclear action from any of the former Soviet states now in control of part of the arsenal, and from any one of several other nuclear club members and organizations in other parts of the world. Perhaps the same kind of high technology "Star Wars" threat that proved too much for the Soviet Union can be effective against other nations as well--if it could be deployed.

The discussion (and supporting events) thus far lead some to the historically improbable and highly idealistic conclusion that high technology may have made war obsolete, at least war of the global variety. "We are at the end of history," say some--meaning that civilization has reached a new and permanently peaceful state. If so, it is communications technology that is the main cause, on the one hand by making it difficult for one side to gain a technological advantage, and on the other by reducing suspicions and promoting global cooperation. Indeed, if it could be assumed that all military knowledge were equally available to both sides, then no global war would be winnable. If the leaders on both sides of a nuclear confrontation were rational enough to believe that those on the other side would never strike first, they would do so themselves. If they were sufficiently rational to understand that even a first strike that destroyed 90 percent of the potential counter strike would still result in their country's own annihilation, then neither side would strike first, nor even at all. Realizing this and acting upon it logically--that is by an eventual total world nuclear disarmament--are not the same thing, however. If a perfect defensive system could be devised, and any hostile ICBM destroyed at or shortly after launch, then the best insurance for peace would be to share this technology publicly and with all nations. Since it is the presumption of the information age that this knowledge, like any other, could not be kept secret for long in any case, there would be important real advantages for peace in sharing it from the outset.

The first obstacle to such a result would be the development of provably reliable defense hardware and software--a goal often striven toward, but so far elusive. The second obstacle to the peace scenario is that a considerable portion of the world economy is dependent on the war industry, and any cutbacks in the level of spending on arms would create severe economic dislocations. It must however be judged on measurement of the ethical considerations, whether absolute or utilitarian, that the payment of even a very large economic cost to secure the number of human lives at risk is beneficial, and ought to be undertaken. In a nuclear age, the alternative to peace is no longer war, but the destruction of the whole human race--something that cannot be entertained, and that must be avoided if there is to be a next civilization. It is worth remarking that the transitional period of the early years will be the most difficult, for nationalism is an opponent of both the spread of technology and of peace, and so are many traditional institutions. However, if the twin trends of globalization and localization rob national governments of power, and the universal availability of information takes away their ability to keep secrets, both the motivation for waging war and some of the means will be seriously impaired.

That does not mean war will not happen anyway. For political or religious reasons, some countries are still relatively closed, and information about them is still difficult to obtain and unreliable. If the Russians have not in fact given up their desire to rule the entire world, their best course of action would be to pose as peacemakers and lull the West into a false sense of security; pretend to disarm while actually re-arming; and hope to strike at a weak moment. That such an approach may seem improbable in the West might not deter them; war has often seemed unlikely until it has actually started. Neither are the new democracies in Eastern Europe very secure; one or more of them could easily return to the old ways in an effort to stave off economic collapse. In addition, China has yet to emerge entirely from under the yoke of tyranny, and it is much too soon to speculate on what will happen to her when she does. Add to these the perennial powder keg that is the Middle East, tensions between some South American countries, the poisonous relations between India and Pakistan, and the vested interests of the arms industry, and there remain all the ingredients for many minor and major wars for decades to come.

Military wars are not the only kind, moreover. There are a variety of substitutes for gaining or expressing dominion over others. One outlet is sports, which in some countries takes on warlike dimensions, both on the field and off. Thus the Olympics became the focus of great endeavours not only for the athletes, but also for the national governments who funded their training. Success on the field, slopes, or ice was often seen as a proof of national superiority, and such proofs are easier to buy than those obtained from winning a military victory. Revenge for an old invasion of one's territory may be impossible to achieve on the battlefield, but very sweet at the hockey arena or soccer stadium in front of thousands of screaming spectators and the hungry eye of the television cameras. Moreover, as in conventional warfare, some may decide that winning at sports is everything--and such an attitude has both ethical and medical consequences, as performance-enhancing drugs come to be seen as essential for such high-level competition.

A more important form is economic war. For the sake of promoting employment at home, governments often adopt strategies to ensure the establishment and prosperity of industries under their jurisdiction. These may include tax breaks, low-cost land or loans, production or wage subsidies, high tariff or other import barriers, or combinations of these.

These activities take place at all levels of technological development and in all industries, and the results are much the same in each case. For example, the United States engaged in an agricultural products subsidy war with the Europeans and Japanese through the 1980s. Farmers enjoyed government sponsored prices and protection from competition, but overproduced and caused enormous surpluses, which had to be stockpiled at even greater cost, or risk a price collapse. No more people are fed by such policies, and the natural market becomes so distorted that a substantial portion of government resources comes to be devoted to the subsidies. The cost easily escalates to the point where they destabilize the economies of the countries using them as much as they do their ostensible targets in other nations. For instance, by 1988, the elaborate subsidies and protections built into the Japanese system had become among the most costly in the world, and some cracks had already begun to appear. These became more serious in the 1990s, and it remains to be seen whether Japan can recover. Subsidies, like all forms of protectionism, have the potential to cause either wars or economic collapse.

Other examples can be taken from high technology trade. When American manufacturers of memory chips (DRAMs) found they could not compete with the low wages and subsidies of the foreign manufacturers, they asked for government protection in the form of import quotas. This reduced the supply of the chips and drove prices up. Since the American manufacturers could not respond immediately to fill the demand, prices continued to increase, and offshore manufacturers got most of the profit from the windfall. By mid-1988, the prices for such devices had reached their highest level in years, due to the distortion of the market caused by political actions. That is, the result was not an immediate increase in domestic jobs, but shortages, higher prices, and a transfer of wealth to other countries. Subsequently, of course, supply and demand took over as the information that there were profits to be made disseminated; supply was ramped up; and prices came down sharply.

Airplanes are also an important commodity, both for the sake of jobs, and for national pride. Aerospace contracts are lured to the soil of a particular nation by governments that subsidize manufacturers to offer their goods at a loss in order to get the business. In such an atmosphere efficient companies are penalized, and the inefficient are encouraged to become more so. Fewer planes are actually made, because inefficiencies drive the price up in spite of state largesse, and consumers pay the higher cost for the waste. The space industry is also often cited as an example of state subsidies creating artificial barriers to the kind of free trade that could result in much greater efficiency and lower cost. Manufacturers whose only customer is the government, and who work on cost-plus contracts, have no incentive to reduce costs and are discouraged from or even forbidden to export.

Sometimes, the market is interfered with by the establishment of cartels at the state level--again for the purpose of ensuring the highest possible price for the goods of the nations involved. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is an excellent example of this kind of activity. By combining the major oil producers into a single price-fixing group, it was able to engineer enormous price increases in the 1970s, and an equally large transfer of wealth to its members.

All trade wars must come to an end eventually, however, because they are by very nature self-destructive. No nation can afford to increase subsidies or trade barriers indefinitely, and every cartel eventually causes other sources of supply to be developed in response to the high prices. In their collapse, trade wars can do even more harm than while they are in progress, for if they do not end in a negotiated peace, they may end in a shooting war, thus they may constitute one of the greatest risks to world peace. A premise of the information age is that national leaders will realize that greater long term prosperity is available for everyone if trade and other tensions can be eliminated and the prospect of new wars reduced. However, enablement does not mean implementation. The ability to eliminate trade wars will not necessarily lead to their demise; in some places and for some industries they may become worse.

All these calculations and arguments may easily be upset, for the history of this century in particular is replete with the ascension to power of fanatics who were prepared to see their own nations crippled militarily and economically, and die themselves in their efforts trying to dominate or destroy either their neighbours or some hated ethnic or religious minority. Even if the superpower governments have now become super-rational and do succeed in disarming because they realize that a policy of mutual assured destruction is neither moral nor sane, there is no guarantee that those who follow them in power will even be rational, much less super-rational. Unless all the world's citizens are not only fully informed but also free to determine their governments, there is little likelihood that disarmament would be permanent; and there is a small possibility that it will not be even then.

What is more, there are dozens of small states that spend even larger percentages than did the cold war superpowers of their much more meagre budgets on arms. In some of these, the military has not just a vested interest in the status quo, but directly operates the state for its own benefit. Such regimes, like all such tyrannies before them, are stable in the short term only if they can persuade their citizens that there are real threats to meet, or good reasons to become an aggressor. So long as there are nations, there will probably also be wars. Even if the combatants gradually kill off each other's populations, and wear out their economies, there will be larger powers prepared to use such local conflicts both for economic gain and as testing grounds for their own weapons--so the world is still threatened. At some point, many more of the smaller countries will achieve nuclear capability, raising the probability that one of them will use it in an effort to decisively settle things with their enemies.

Other nations will clamour to have nuclear capability too, and the temptation to sell this technology for the very high prices being offered will be too great for the world's arms merchants to resist, so nuclear weaponry may well spread world wide. After all, there are already many countries that see the sale of conventional weapons solely as a way of obtaining cash, not as a moral issue. Once such technology did spread, it will be impossible to stop its use unless war itself could be prevented. This too is possible, but can only take place with the cooperation of all the large powers, for every nation with weapons capability would have to be persuaded to stop their manufacture and sale. Such an enterprise would involve a surrender of sovereignty on a scale never before seen, and a placing of trust in an international body to a degree not yet imagined. Such action will be hard for all the world's nations, regardless of their size, but the alternative--gradually escalating nuclear arsenals until one is used--is not an option for human survival, and cannot be followed much longer.

A new threat, and perhaps one more difficult to police, comes from the many nuclear technicians and scientists of the former Soviet Union who are now looking for a place to use their skills and knowledge. If only a few of these were to sell their expertise to some of the more warlike of the third world nations, there could arise several new nuclear dangers to world peace. It seems unlikely that all these people can be gainfully employed by non-belligerent nations for peaceful purposes, and those affected are hardly likely to enjoy unemployment after their many years as part of an elite establishment.

As the revival of Naziism illustrates--even if in small numbers of adherents--no nation is safe from demagoguery. It is always possible for a small number of the disaffected to raise the spectre of real or imagined ills, blame them on a domestic or foreign scapegoat, and persuade the majority to initiate genocide or war. No minority can be assumed to be free from the fear of such activities--whether Jews, Christians, or some relocated ethnic group. Neither is any country immune from such activities--whether in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, or Africa.

The discussion in this section raises further questions about the viability of nationalism, totalitarian forms of government in general, and the morality and sanity of any policy that emphasizes the ability to wage war as a high national priority. It is assumed here that there cannot again be such a thing as a just or moral nuclear conflict; no imaginable goal of public policy or national interest can justify the annihilation of most or all of the human race. The question is no longer whether the world ought to disarm and to effectively police a general peace, even at the cost of some national interest; it is rather a question of how to go about it. For it is no longer national interests, but human survival that is at issue, and that is surely a high priority in any ethical system. In the long run, an information economy is a global phenomenon, and nationalism may decline. If it does so gracefully, peace is possible. If its death paroxysms are sufficiently violent, any other outcome becomes possible.