Much is made nowadays of the institution of war-the idea that conflict is neither a by-product of democracy's inability to offer new physical territories and resources, or simply an economy-boosting industry, but absolutely vital to any society. It's an obvious concept given the amount of workers involved in that particular sphere of commerce, and one that seems sensible considering the potential hike in unemployment should the defence industry ever suffer a collapse, forced or otherwise. This kind of attitude not only allows governments to, quite literally, get away with murder, but allows us to feel slightly at ease about the entire concept by giving us the opportunity to take a negative view on the act of war, whilst taking a neutral stance on the military institution. It's one of those happy mediums that's just the right side of palatable for the masses, but allows others to go about the businesses with the minimum of hassle from the public. Whilst capitalists argue that democracy and free market are the most effective promoters of peace- because war is bad for any other industry as it is good for defence- almost everyone else's opinion is inclined to agree that capitalism breeds conflict.

There is a little known theory floating around at the moment called " the broken window fallacy", named thus because of the comparison of war to petty vandalism. Think, if you will, of a shopkeeper. Sometime last night a drunken hooligan launches a brick through his gleaming shop window of his fine estate. It's easy to see the knock-on benefits from an economic point of view: the act of breaking this unfortunate's window facilitates the movement of currency  so vital to any economy, and extrapolated out, the absence of any bricks through any windows could cause the collapse of the entire glazing industry, making the mindless hoodlum more of a social benefactor than a thug. This idea falls down however, when you consider that the shopkeeper would otherwise have a perfectly serviceable window as well as the money required to replace it. Money he would have no doubt delivered to another part of the economy. In essence it's easy to see the economic benefits of minor vandalism, or indeed a major war, but ignore the simple fact that war costs. Not only lives, but economic stability. One in the eye perhaps, for those who cite economy boosting as a reason for war. So what do we do? what options do we have? what choices must we make? what necessities must we sacrifice?

What is the future of war?