By David Warren

I wasn't being entirely serious when I complimented the engineers of nuclear weapons - American, Russian, and Chinese (technology is now quite globalized) - for having solved the fallout problem.

Of course, the problem of backward technology still remains, and truth to tell, I cannot trust the atom-bombists of Iran, Pakistan, and even North Korea, to be quite up-to-date. By irresponsibly dropping their bombs throughout the United States, for instance, they might still reduce populations as far away as Australia.

Indeed, like Father Ronald Knox, I've always been against ENTHUSIASM, and we might fear that, in the next world war, Russian and Chinese missile launchings would be supplemented by the missile launchings of the Third World.

This is a problem not so much with nuclear weapons, than it is with world wars. We wouldn't want to start one, even over a limited issue like the borders of Ukraine (in preference to the borders of the United States), because once it has started, "everyone and his neighbour" will want to join in.

There are advantages to depopulation, that may appeal in unpredictable places.

And as American readers ought to be constantly aware, anti-Americanism is a popular theme in about 193 countries, counting only members of the U.N., plus "Palestine."

For even when they do not have a grievance to be nursing, there's always envy.

This is a phenomenon I first noted in my Canadian childhood: that once the snowball fight begins, everyone starts reaching for his own snowball. Having the most snowballs in your pile won't discourage him less from aiming.

As I say, the technology has been improving. I am not a nuclear scientist, myself, but I understand that a shiny, sparkling, modern missile can cross any ocean in a few minutes (even when not launched from a nearer submarine), and is tailor-made to explode, vastly, rather than to spread fallout. They are specifically designed to take out cities, in fact, where the population of the world tends to be concentrated.

A supernova can provide a much bigger bang, but the next war in the city you are most familiar with would nevertheless be memorable. It would be remembered, I think, mostly by "rural hicks," for they would now be the likeliest survivors.

Now, please don't think I am advocating nuclear war simply because the plurality of church-going Christians live in the less urban areas, and may find their metropolitan friends more expendable.

In fact, I am not advocating any sort of war, even with slingshots, although the Christians in this "valley of the shadow of death" should be prepared for anything.

Moreover, it's not just Christians. Babies have been, too, "moving out of cities," to speak demographically. A glance at the numbers in America, or Europe, reveals that while the birthrate in cities, especially inner cities, is descending to around one per woman, those in rural counties tend to be rather more fecund, although still falling below the replacement rate.

However, as everyone knows, wars do generally result in "baby booms." (Just sayin'.)

The nuclear family (no relation to nuclear war) is among other huge factors giving rural hicks the advantage, to say nothing of extended families, where their existence can still be traced. For God made the world not only for fathers and mothers; and as Hillary Clinton used to say, "It takes a village." (Truly, a village more often than an urban ward.)

Even without a war, the world is depopulating. It will be like nuclear Armageddon in slow motion, according to the experts in statistical prognosis. Complicating this, people were moving INTO cities for the jobs and other amenities. But in the long and gradual view, the cities will depopulate first.

Also, the non-Christians are leading our progress towards the vanishing point. Not only is the idea of a child-free existence growing in popularity, among the faithless, their trends include sterilizing themselves through sex-change and by other means. High-tech comm...