Behavior: The Case for War

War is the supreme test of man, in which he rises to heights never approached in any other activity.

—General George S. Patton

The arguments against war are too familiar to need repeating. In the dream of peace, they have been steadily heard along every step of mankind's bloody and belligerent course. And yet war, not peace, has been mankind's most faithful companion. In 35 centuries of recorded history, only one year out of 15 has not been drenched by the blood of the battlefield. Today, a world that presumably cherishes peace as fervently as ever nevertheless keeps 22 million men under arms—many of them, as in Viet Nam and the Middle East, actively engaged in combat. Is there something in what Patton says? In short, can a case be made for war?

The distressing answer is yes; civilization itself is inconceivable without it. This, at any rate, is the conviction of British Sociologist Stanislav Andreski,* one of a number of scientists who are willing to play the devil's advocate for Mars. Such agencies as the Rand Corp., the Hudson Institute and others annually spend millions exploring Andreski's thesis. For war is group rather than individual behavior; and since it is undeniably a fixture of human society, the question that Andreski implies begs for an answer: What purposes can war possibly serve?

"It is an unpleasant truth," Andreski writes, "that, human nature being what it is, without war civilization would still be divided into small bands wandering in the forests and jungles." He contends that "advanced civilization with extensive division of labor can only arise within a large and fairly dense population engaged in peaceful exchange of goods and services. There could be only one way in which small tribes could be welded into states and small states into large ones: namely, conquest."

Moreover, he credits war with producing, or contributing to many of civilization's most treasured fruits. Among them: