2005 has been an annus horribilis. Since last Boxing Day we have seen one disaster follow on the heels of another, and governments - especially those with really cool military technology - responding so inadequately at times that you would think, with some justification, that the wellbeing of citizens is no longer their primary concern.

In this same year I see my grandson nearing the time when he will choose a career. Options are already on the table. When he was four, he wanted to be a quarryman and a fire fighter. Now it's either a structural engineer or a physicist.

One option that has already been rejected is the army. Four generations of his family - our side of it at least, including his communist great-great-grandfather, and his great-grandfather who would never have chosen to be on the Arctic convoys, but was conscripted to be there - all of them have been, for close on a century, dead set against 'seeing any of our boys in uniform'. Tom himself has come to a similar conclusion independently of ancestral promptings, and by an interesting route. Having spent some of his out-of-school hours - though not an excessive time - playing computer war-games, he has firmly decided that he does not want to be a soldier. For him, war games are two things: hugely enjoyable, and (even if it’s America versus China) total make-believe. He understands the theory that virtual violence has a bad effect on the morals, values and behaviour of young people - and rejects it as absurd. As for real war, like the one in which his great-grandfather more than once witnessed a ship going down with few survivors, this disturbs him so much that for a time - until he got on top of it - whenever people were talking about war he used to change the subject or go to his room and play Command and Conquer.

All the same, I've been thinking. He's a very fit young man, he plays ice hockey, he'd much rather be active than passive. I could imagine him in the army. He'd look especially smart in the resplendent dress uniform of a Scottish regiment. So I'd be happy for him to change his mind and enlist. On one condition.

That the army renounces war.

The feasibility of the idea first came to me at the time of the tsunami, and more recently after Katrina and the South Asian earthquake. There’s a huge task here for the military. In all natural disasters, what are needed are rescue services, food, shelter, fuel, and medicines. But above all, what is needed is speed - a fast response, all the necessities on the ground, exactly where they're wanted, in next to no time. Even better, at least in the case of earthquakes, is to have a seismographic and satellite warning system so that mass evacuations can be organised before the disaster happens. As for hurricanes, nature gives ample warning - though not enough, apparently, for the current US administration.

Once again, in the October catastrophe in Pakistan and Kashmir the response has been too little, too late. The presence of hi-tech US and British forces in Afghanistan, and the proximity of US bases such as Diego Garcia: none of this seemed relevant to the urgent need to relieve pain and save lives. Two weeks after the Pakistan earthquake, John Reid assured us that the Government was sending as many as three ‘huge, huge’ helicopters. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that - lack of political will aside - the British and US military are not only fully engaged in occupying other people’s countries, but simply not logistically geared to deal with natural disasters. As things stand, to expect them to do rapid disaster response is almost like asking a social work department to do keyhole surgery.

If there's an Eastern European country to be bombed, or a Middle Eastern country to be invaded, the armed forces don't pussyfoot around. As soon as orders are received, they get into top gear. They're not perfect - soldiers sometimes have to steal bits of wrecked vehicles to use as body-armour - but by and large they do a fast and efficient job. So why can’t they hit the ground running when the enemy is cantankerous old Mother Nature?

In the wake of so many disasters, there have been voices raised that make this military reorientation seem less far-fetched. Tim Garden, in a recent Independent article, persuasively argues the case for change. Armies and defence ministries are simply - one might say self-evidently - geared towards fighting wars. But there is no good reason why ‘military capability’ should not extend into the realm of ‘natural disaster capability’. Since rapid response is of paramount importance, and since equipment - especially helicopters, which are probably the most vital aid and rescue equipment - cannot be shifted half way round the world in a short time, there should be forward bases, designed at least as much for disaster relief as for defence. Forces need more air transport, more specialist troops such as paramedics and engineers, and more reconstruction equipment.

Disasters which are arguably man-made will happen more frequently in future - supplementing those that have to be blamed on plate tectonics rather than governments and corporations. And for both varieties of catastrophe, we need the most technologically advanced, efficient, disciplined armed force - armed, that is, with rescue helicopters, fast amphibious vehicles, transport for thousands of prefabricated houses, water purification equipment, supplies of vaccines and nutritious food.

There has never been a better moment for the military to begin replacing permanent war with permanent readiness to save lives. It’s unlikely that the world’s greatest military power will initiate this revolution, unless Americans can rid themselves of the current administration. But conceivably, Britain could lead the way.

And then I woke up and realised it had all been a dream. To hope that the military will have done with war is utopian; even to look for a major shift towards disaster preparedness seems only a little less so. Until the army comes out with a new mission statement - and until we can believe they mean it (no good Blair or Straw just telling us they mean it, that doesn't count) - my anti-war grandson will have to stick to Plan A - structural engineer or physicist.