LEJ said:

The problem lies in this : In a world at peace, there must be either a balance of power that holds antagonistic forces in mutual respect and paasivity, or a single leadership. If the single leadership option is chosen, that leadership must be acceptable to the Great Powers, and there's the rub : The League of Nations and the Untied Nations were created as a form of world governing body, but are only effective when the Great Powers agree on laws and actions.

This is true as far as it goes, but there are multiple vectors at work. The balance of power is not just between nations, but comprises m,illions of lesser contracts and balances. The two major shifts in large that make the possibility of future peace a little more realistic are the rise of multi-national corporations and the rise of instant planetary communication.

Multinationals, because they are threatened by market loss if two of their national markets go for each others' throats. Rapid communication accelerates responses and makes it harder to build hidden war machines and commit atrocities in secret, although it is still possible.

But what kind of a process, legal framework or international court could bring about a planet-wide policy that war was anathema? The UN certainly tries hard, but it is operating in the face of conditions which promote war -- rampant nationalism, economic disparity, people being pushed around without let. People who are building and winning at their lives, as a rule, and getting enough to eat, don't usually do the war thing.

If the core conditions shift, through economic and technical advancement, then gradually the warmongers look like the psychos they are rather than possible solutions. Ya gotta be nuts to go to war, but being nuts beats watching your children starve to death, doncha think?

But until then, don't be dissin' LEJ prematurely here -- wait until he says something that ain't so!

A