…military action is itself a form of education.

Information as such has become the new sinews of war.

All technological changes result in war.

The coverage is the war. If there were no coverage… and there are far more people covering the war than there are fighting… there’d be no war. Yes, the newsmen and the mediamen around the world are actually the fighters, not the soldiers anymore. There is a flip. There is a reverse.

But, in a world in which the whole environment is made of information, it is natural that war should be conducted by the same means. The informational image has become increasingly top weaponry. We call it the cool war, and the means totally involving.

Since the electronic age is total and inclusive, atomic warfare in the "global village" cannot be limited. As new technological man races toward this totality and inclusiveness, he will no longer, as in earlier times, have an experience of nature, as "nature-in-the-wild.”.

I've often argued the paradox that it is the coverage of wars that intensify the warfare condition, because once you put information around the events of any battlefront, it steps up the activity of that battlefront enormously, by creating great audience participation.

World War I a railway war of centralization and encirclement. World War II a radio war of decentralization concluded by the Bomb. World War III a TV guerrilla war with no divisions between civil and military fronts.

War has become a useless concept, an effete category that confuses all our thinking about the new situation.

We have now entered our first TV war. It has none of the features of the Second World War, which was a radio war. Already our TV war has abolished the boundaries between military and civilian life, just as our electronic information environment has abolished all the boundaries between the subjects of the curriculum.

If the Vietnam War were not reported in the press, any press, what do you think would happen? … how much of the war actually consists in being processed through such media?

IF the Vietnam War were not reported in the press, any press, what d you think would happen?...how much of the ear actually consists in being processed through such media?”

It takes emotion to move merchandise. And wars and rumors of wars are the merchandise and also the motion of the popular press.

In Catch-22, the figure of the black market and the ground of war merge into a monster presided over by the syndicate. When war and market merge, all money transactions begin to drip blood.

War, in fact, can be seen as a process of achieving equilibrium among unequal technologies, a fact that explains Toynbee's puzzled observation that each invention of a new weapon is a disaster for society, and that militarism is the most common cause in the breaking of civilizations.

If there were not coverage of any sort of any war, no reports, no information, how would this change the nature of war?”

Two wars cannot be fought in the world anymore at one time because the journalists would only cover one.

On the other hand, the old-fashioned kind of "war" becomes as impracticable as playing hopscotch with bulldozers.