*

War war war.  It's obviously cool: swords, awesome explosions, flags, bonding . . .  You agree.  But, come on, we have plenty of source material around to create reasonable facsimiles.  So, we can mine what we've got for 1000 years and be fine.  War stories will abound forever.  (For example, as long as anyone can remember, mankind has been riffing on the theme put down by whatever it was that forged creation.  But, none of us have encountered any NEW deities recently, right?  So, obviously we're creative.  Similarly, new war stories don't actually REQUIRE new wars.)  In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, the wars that have already been fought and the wars that we imagine are, in most ways, superior to the wars that have been thrown together over the last 30 years by world governments anyway.  

REAL wars have reached their zenith. Vietnam was the last pop-culturally significant one: Doors music, homeless vets with cardboard signs, &c. The only good stuff to come out of the most recent military conflicts is a crop of badass Paralympic athletes. But, war doesn't justify super fast armored wheelchairs and bouncy metal legs -- shark attacks work for that too.  

There was a time when technology came from war -- that was a big argument for WWII's cache.  But, that era is over -- nowadays, it's the other way around -- the internet and whatnot enhances War's efficacy, but war itself doesn't actually generate any new toys anymore.  So, let's quit it.  We've moved from diminishing returns to net loss.  War is dumb now.  We don't even fight real stuff.  It's debatable whether Communism was a silly enemy, but Terror?  Really?  Even if someone is serious about that, the antidote to terror is not force of arms -- we should be using payloads of whimsy.  

People usually assume that there are reasons for war in addition to creating cool war stories and gadgets -- I sort of doubt that, but I'll entertain these "other reasons".  Those people also say that it's naive to call for the dismantling of the military.  That's what they said to John Lennon.  These people usually don't know anything more than John and I, so given a common ignorance, I don't see why it's MORE naive to believe that we aren't in any real danger from "enemies" than it is to believe that there are a bunch of bogeymen out to get us.  A more sophisticated bunch of people extend the argument from imminent but vague and nebulous threats to a discussion of the role military power plays in maintaining global stability.   I don't know.  Maybe.  But, if we're the ones making the best war gear, why do we need to continue to pump ourselves up?  Also, if we have an ethical obligation to use our might to fight tyranny abroad where others can't -- isn't that circular?  Can't we reduce that obligation by reducing our might?