I've been developing and promoting a theory on the sacrificial meaning of warfare for many years. Tens-of-thousands of scholars have been exposed to this theory hundreds-of-thousands of times through the Library of Social Science Newsletter, as well as through my papers and lectures.

Recently, I've presented this idea more bluntly, stating that nations (or the leaders of nations) take actions leading to the slaughter of their own soldiers. The most obvious case study is the First World War, where soldiers--year after year--were required to run into machine gun-fire and artillery shells--and were massacred.

I rarely receive rejoinders: people pointing out how I've got things wrong; where I've "missed the boat."

However, one scholar presents the sacrificial theory of warfare (I've cited a passage from her paper below). She states that the idea that nations might actually "need" members to be willing to die--can appear prima facie as "a revolting claim." She says nothing could seem more wrong (even "sacrilegious") than to propose that the nation might "need members to die for it."

I understand this theory is disturbing. However, theories are not usually evaluated according to whether they are "disturbing" or not.

Imagine if the best response to Darwin's Theory was: "the idea that human beings have evolved from lower forms of animal life can appear prima facie as a revolting claim."

Richard Koenigsberg