The main impetus for peace education is the arms race, which places peace education in the conflict between conservatives advocating increased nuclear deterrence and liberals supporting nuclear disarmament. In the United States, education for peace is still in its infancy. Other developed nations, such as the Scandinavian countries and to a lesser degree Great Britain, have allocated more resources to peace education. Britain's experiences with this subject foreshadow future conflicts in the United States. There, conservatives have claimed that peace studies serve as a smokescreen for unilateral disarmament and left-wing politics and that peace studies are unsuitable for schools because they lack intellectual rigor and substance, are too complex for students to grasp, encourage prejudice, and attempt to manipulate the ideologies of young people, and that the results of such studies cannot be measured by standardized tests. These objections can be countered. For example, peace education, as an interdisciplinary approach, can be rigorous. Further, peace is no more complex a subject than are history, civics, and geography. Finally, all education, not just peace studies, shows a bias toward a preferred life-style, and if peace education does not fit in with greater standardization, then that is a virtue, not a fault. (IS)