Has anyone noticed how many recent actors are the sons and daughters of actors?
I have been (and I guess, am still) having an interesting discussion with Pericles and others about War on another thread, and it's causes; particularly concerning the part religion has played.
I have been arguing Religion has been more of a justification, than -of itself- a motive.
I would suggest wars have been fought over resources, and more specifically over dividing dwindling resources between aristocrats.
A King has too many sons. War.
Growth creates too many Aristocrats. Invasion.
We are now in a world of rapidly diminishing resources, while at the same time we have a rapidly escalating '2 speed economy' (us and them).
Meanwhile, unfettered Capitalism has diminished, and continues to diminish, the 'middle class' or medium class of companies as the strong (too big to fail) devour the 'weak'. Competition against such players has made it harder and harder for new entrants into the marketplace.
Many of the major players are entangled in the 'military complex', to some degree or another.
Am I alone in seeing some cause for concern?
I really don't want to see our children become cannon fodder.

more grim thoughts..
yes there is a boys club
and elites who own most of it

and the simple thing is
they have earned it the hard way
thus need to repay for doing it the wrong way

thing is...this life is temporal
we bring nothing..thus at death cant take nuthing..
[but that we chose to do...then to account for..how we did it]

if you could only see the depravity
of your ancestors suffering in hell
for the riches they freely gave to you..who knew
to chose a comfortable parentage...[but lets not forget]

TO WHOME MUCH WAS GIVEN
much more was to be expected

those who lust for money
lust for material delusion

power over mere huh?mans..is nothing
to the greater glories..you forgo in chasing the money
[while ignoring the poor...suffering/paying for your excess]

AR-is/to cRATS
as AB is to ab/origonal
your works reveal..where you spend eternity
spending..[or repaying]..the undue..or due credit

you earned..[here]
you can fool..the people all the time
but never the spirit..

who is watching..
judging what you chose to do
[or not do]

be thankfull we have ben given so much
[as thankfull as those who have ben given so little]

death duties
are the only duties that can fully restore
that obtained..[or hidden in trusts][..by unfair means

so bring back death duties
[call it a windfall tax..FOR ALL WINDFALL*]..[gross proffits]

double for those hiding their wealth
in a trust..or corperation..or trying to hide it..[or avoid it]..

ignorance is no excuse..*

I wouldn't be too concerned if I were you, Grim.

The way I see it, the main reason we have not seen destructive global conflict for 65 years is the existence of nuclear weapons. Instead, we have "police actions", "limited engagements", "border incursions" and so forth, that keep the military-industrial complex moving.

The "Aristocrats", as you call them, are far more interested in the perpetuation of the conventional arms race. Which is of course an economic powerhouse, and now far more closely aligned with information technology than things that go bang, very loudly.

If one major faction were to destroy another major faction, the result would be economic disaster, rather than economic gain. When the maximum amount of damage you could do was to pepper your enemy with arrows, or shoot at him with your Lee Enfield, collateral economic damage was kept within reasonable bounds. Now that you can destroy entire countries with some carefully placed explosives, you don't just take out a country, you take out an entity that buys and sells stuff on a global basis.

And most world leaders are well aware that firing nuclear missiles at your enemy is not only genocidal, but suicidal too.

In fact, any major "wars" of the twentyfirst century are likely to be fought at the economic level. When it eventually dawns on the American people that sending "merkin sojers" to remote parts of the world is actually a pointless and counter-productive exercise, it is unlikely that the vacuum they leave behind will be filled by another wave of grunts with M-16s.

So breathe more easily - it is increasingly unlikely that your children will become cannon-fodder, at least in a physical sense.

They might like to learn to read a balance-sheet, though. Purely in self-defence, you understand.

“So breathe more easily - it is increasingly unlikely that your children will become cannon-fodder, at least in a physical sense.”
Oh well, if you say so, that's it then.
There are of course, a number of other small matters.
The gap between 'haves' and 'havenots' is widening, almost universally. Historically one of the first precursors of war.
Greece, Spain, Ireland and even France is being urged by the IMF to 'practice' austerity; something which rarely affects the rich in any meaningful way.
Riots in Egypt and Tunisia.
Imagine for a second a primitive culture, where tribal leaders have effectively become a tribe OF leaders; where members of this tribe would sooner give a million dollars to a peer, than 10 dollars to a poorer member of their traditional 'tribe'.
Where all that matters is protecting the future of your own family.
In such a culture, what would be the simplest way if extending the life of dwindling resources?
I doubt nuclear weapons will ever be used in world conflict, although a nuclear detonation by a rogue nation or even a terrorist group is becoming increasingly possible. That much destruction is as you say, not economically viable. The money on building the weapons has already been spent, and it is extremely unlikely that usage would increase demand for more.
But internecine squabbles between neighbouring countries, where the wealthy can leave and take their money with them...
And then there's the 'Youth Bulge'...