Heinlein and the Art of Military Maintenance

Heinlein makes the argument that all values reduce to the necessity to survive -- and that in consequence, war (and the preparation for war) can never be eliminated. Is he right? Well he's half right. It would be foolish to say that, when it all comes down, we don't act for the ultimate end of survival. Even acts that can be misconstrued as purely selfless are most often for ultimate survival. A mother's self sacrifice for her child's survival and the Passion of the Christ both represent one person's sacrifice for the ultimate survival of their offspring/humanity.

On the other hand, however, this idea does not mean that war can never be eliminated. Heinlein's model implies that there is constant warfare where no country or group ever comes to dominate the scene. This completely improbable scenario would create perpetual armament, but more likely would be the development of an international/intergallactic hegemon. Then, in some period similar to the Pax Romana, there could be a massive degree of disarmament and a period where few feel threatened or capable of going to war. In this case, acting on necessity to survive would not be war and perpetual armament, but cooperation with the emerged hegemon in hopes of receiving benevolence.

Likewise, constant militarization could lead to massive armament by all nations to the point of an impending mutual destruction. This case could also lead to disarmament on a huge scale and the relative peace among nations. Though in this case, it is likely that different forms of armament would restart, leading to the exact end that Heinlein suggests in as many cases as true disarmament occurs.

So human values do eventually deteriorate to only the will to survive, but survival will not always be by military means as Heinlein suggests. However, Heinlein's argument carries merit in many cases, but is simply not as sweeping as it would suggest.