As to Hernes' critique of my use of the rank disequilibrium theory, I admit making a mistake in using it as a tentative explanation, because, as he points out, my implicit modification of Galtung's theory is disconfirmed by the data. The fact of being rank-disequilibrated does not add anything to the main effects which follow from the distributions on the poor-rich and big-small dimensions, respectively. That means that these two dimensions should themselves be invoked as explanation without using them in conjunction in a disequilibrium theory. Hernes also shows the greater importance of the poor-rich dimension over the big-small dimension in solving his equation. This, in fact, was already shown in my article (p. 231). As to the other points made by Hernes, I should like to say the following. He asks for an explanation of the relationship between (the military's) custodianship for the national interest and conflicting regional interests. The answer is simply that belonging to different regions in some way or another may give rise to different conceptions of how national interest is best served. One cannot, of course, assume complete identity of values or interest in any corporate group being actively engaged in national politics, and especially not when the members of the group in question show great variation in social and cultural characteristics, as is the case with Latin American officers. Then, Hernes criticizes my geographical variable. True, it is problematic, but which variables are not at this level? And I feel that it helps tap exactly the dimension of regionalism and lack of national integration. Recent political history of the area is ripe with instances where this has been a major issue. Hernes also criticizes my use of one cross-section in time with regard to GNP per capita. This may have its weaknesses. It should be pointed out, however, that I use it only as a dichotomized variable. I feel that there have been relatively insignificant movements between the categories. Looking at the lower category, does Hernes really believe that any of the following countries Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Brazil, and Ecuador have ever been among the richer countries on the continent? Give more time and resources I might have used several crosssections for the post-war period, but where should the pre-war data (or for that matter, any type of similar data) be obtained? My dependent variable, military coups, is also considered unsatisfactory since what I designate 'military coups' are only those the were successful. That this is a problem is well known, but I had to limit myself to those instances that are known, and where data are accessible. Hernes uses a, to my mind, misleading analogy in speaking about the Nazi aggression during World War II as not being aggression since it was not 'successful'. The point here is that the Nazi aggression was a very manifest event indeed, leaving behind lots of data. The attempted coup he mentions was also a very manifest event, and such events should possibly be included. But where should the line be drawn? Is it an instance of an unsuccessful coup when three colonels gather and make plans for a direct onslaught on the power incumbent, but give up when they find that