Traditionally war is contrasted with diplomacy, Von Clausewitz' statement that "war is the continuation of policy by other means" is simply a clever observation. Diplomacy in its early stages is a means to get reasonable people to take reasonable positions. Ultimately it involves threat. War is the execution of the threat. But, the reality is calculation. One side deems itself the possessor of superior ability to overcome its enemies in a reasonable world. But, unfortunately we don't live in a reasonable world.

Wars are usually entered into by fanatics. Japan at its deepest policy levels and among its most knowledgeable thinkers did not believe it could win World War II. Fanatical militarists with illusions of grandeur and "samurai" values coerced timid leaders into war.

Even the German military high command knew that America was always the wild card. It had experienced the power of an Allied world before.

Frederick the Great always hated to use his military. He knew the threat of his powerful military was useful in diplomacy as an intimidating coercive influence but in the end if he had to use the military he knew he was walking down a road with no good end.

The Russians proved themselves to be decent human beings in the end. Reagan's "Evil Empire" tag is now in retrospect unfair hyperbole. If the Russian leadership WERE "evil" then they would have unleashed all their nuclear weaponry against the West saying, 'If we can't rule the world, then neither can you! Take that!" They did not. However misguided - the governmental philosophy they tried to foist onto the world seems to have been well meaning.

Today we are faced with what I believe is the last great threat to world conscious continuity. By this I mean the ability of the world to remember the past for long periods of time. Given enough time we will resolve our differences. That is inevitable. Reason would always prevail if you can maintain peaceful coexistence long enough. World commerce and international intercourse will see to that.

The problem is fanaticism.

Fanaticism has no concept of boundary, it has no concept of limitation, it has no ability or room for calculation of what will happen if you lose. In short, reason is not an intellectual option for fanaticism. In today's world there are no consequence for the enemies of the world's communities. We don't have scorched earth policies against a defeated enemy anymore. We are more likely to help put an enemy back on their feet than annihilate them man, woman and child.

Fanatics don't calculate the end results of things.

Because nuclear power is so awesome and powerful any significant exchange of these weapons would initiate a nuclear winter, which would envelope the world and end civilization as we know it. Biological weapons pose the risk of uncontainable outbreaks of super-diseases and new strains of old threats. Fanatics still exist. This places the world's communities at great risk.

The fanatics of the Islamic world are one currently dangerous threat. Irrational governmental responses are another. Both imply fanaticism. The majority in the Islamic world are peace loving people as are the majority of people everywhere, even within governments. Fanaticism nevertheless exists both within the Islamic community and within extremists in our own governments. Today we all HAVE to stand up to it and through "friendly persuasion" we have to make an effort to support the reasonable elements of the Muslim world and the reasonable elements of the non-Islamic one to save the world as we know it. We have to convince each other to think things through to the end and to make the stands which end violence and war, not perpetuate it.

War threatens the "end of the world as we know it" . No one can win anything in that end, but mankind can be thrown back into the Dark Ages. We can lose the precious continuity of consciousness that can bring about the Utopia that "men of good will" have always hoped could happen on Earth. Because, it can happen if we can keep the World community communicating worldwide for a long period of time.

To accomplish this we have to try to reach the everyday person on the street. Friendly persuasion is our only option. We have to ask our Muslim brothers and sisters to look into their book, the Quran, and our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters to look into their Bible, and see if these books require us to destroy God's creation in order to purify the earth for some exclusive theology. If this is what we believe, then, we are lost. The fanatics among the Jewish people alone will counter any Muslim fanatics use of nuclear power against them in kind. Israeli official policy is defined by the code name "Samson". Israeli policy makers have made it known to the Muslim world that they will launch all of their nuclear weaponry against all the capitols of the Muslim world in the event that even a credible threat of a nuclear device being used against them is uncovered. The "Christian nations", including the US especially, have threatened preemptive use of such weaponry. This planet will not survive a massive detonation of nuclear weaponry of even the smallest variety. This insures the end of the civilized world as we know it.

The woman and man on the street hold the key. But the world of reasonable people can only work with the power of "friendly persuasion" to awaken all of us to the great danger we are in from the escalating events that we face today.

What are your thoughts on this subject? The author is interested in hearing them and including any germane responses here. If you have feedback, please write . All significant inputs will be published on this site below.