The best defense is a strong offense, and neither have human beings ever been shy about pursuing power, glory and territory, so of course weaponry has been at the center of technological development.

Galbraith has it exactly wrong: with development of ever more deadly and destructive weapons HAS come improvements in human restraint and the valuation of life: at least in theory, war is now seen as the last alternative, not the first, and only legitimate for defensive purposes.

Look at all the opposition to, and condemnation of, the war in Iraq: the very fact that the war is roundly condemned as NOT defensive, or "necessary," that "preemptive" is a dirty word, is proof that the rules of mankind have changed over the centuries, and especially since the second world war.

The fact that nuclear weapons - though possessed by many - have not been used since the end of WW2, that the Cold War ended without nuclear confrontation, that the dissolution of the Soviet Union had a remarkably bloodless "soft landing," and the fact that the U.S. and its allies cannot be forthright about the "real" reason for war in Iraq - that a very significant portion of the world must be reshaped and that violence is a necessary (though not sufficient) component of that campaign, and Iraq was the most logical place to start - all is testament to a general worldview that says violence is unacceptable other than as a last resort.

Is Galbraith correct that "war remains the decisive human failure"? Of course, but no more so now than at any other time in human history, in fact , less so. For the first time in history, humans have possessed weapons, and fearing enormous consequences, NOT used them - that is progress.