...which makes arms control worth pursuing for completely practical reasons of self-interest.

Personally, I don't consider it my business if two belligerents choose to duke it out (as distinct from one-sided unprovoked attacks), even pound themselves into extinction. Good riddance. In all these pernicious conflicts, in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, all sides have their share of responsibility for keeping the conflict alive for decades and centuries. But their conflict becomes my business if it spills over and hurts innocents.

Violence is a part of human nature, and perhaps we should learn to control it as we control other human vices, such as prostitution, intoxication, etc.: Constrain (zone) it, restrict it, lay down some rules.

How about we create an arena for international conflict, with rules for ritualized combat? Say, Madagascar, where we can inspect the arms shipments to prohibit sloppy weapons such as nukes and CBW. The combatants could agree to fight to the death, winner takes all the homeland of the loser; or for points, with territorial shifts prorated--a 60/40 outcomes gives the winner 10% of the loser's territory. Or, if playing for resources, say, 10% of the loser's oil output for a decade.

Funny how, being a craven human in my own right, I picked Madagascar to ruin, where I don't know anybody, over, say Australia, where I do know some people and like the Aussies in general. My first choice would be Texas, but that's not politically viable right now. NIMBY is another human failing, I guess. Are doomed?

--Robert