As history since Hiroshima shows, the best, perhaps the only, way to curb war is to deter it with such overwhelming force as to turn it from a struggle into suicide.

The combination of professionalism and technology may also result in narrow-minded specialization more suited to a debating society than to an organization whose task it is to cope with, and indeed live in, the dangerous and uncertain environment of war.

Except when war is waged in a desert, noncombatants, also known as civilians or "the people," constitute the great majority of those affected.

The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape.

Never' is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever.

In the future as in the past, both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu will undoubtedly have a lot to offer.

The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself.