How am hijacking the thread? The OP is interested in decreasing death. I gave him options that would do so. These include in refraining from killing by not joining the military and strengthening bonds between societies by engaging in trade. These are time-tested ways for social cohesion.
Annexed lands usually do require strong armies to survive.
I can understand why a member of the armed forces in Israel would be upset about libertarianism in the US, but I am not even talking about libertarianism. I am talking about the history of strong armies and weak ones. Strong ones lead to more death.
They should refrain from colonizing and blockading but since they are strong, they do these things.
It would make more sense to compare Israel to Iraq. Israel is expanding territorially through the settlements and has a much more powerful military. They also have the US green light Saddam though he had. The US is another military that causes problems through its strength.
If Iraq had been weaker than Kuwait, you may be correct that Iraq would not have invaded. The problem is, they weren’t, so they did.
No doubt this explains why Israel’s neighbors don’t treat Israel as Iraq treated Kuwait.
Another counterpoint is that Saddam invaded Kuwait in large part because he needed Kuwait’s oil revenue to pay the debts he incurred in waging war against nations like Iran. So that may be a partial example of a country who wages war because they are weak rather than because they are strong.
Your problem, Will, is that you can’t stop thinking like an American. You think that all wars are wars of choice - which is true for you, thanks to the aforementioned oceans. Here in the real world, usually only one side of a war is there willingly, and that side is most often the side with the stronger military. I׳d rather be on that side side than the other.
That may be true, but I am arguing that stronger militaries lead to more deaths, not which side dies more. Do you think if the military arm of Hamas was stronger that it would lead to more or less death? They exist in your real world. You say when the Israelis feel weak, they become violent, how do you think the Palestinians respond to being in that condition? You seek to increase this imbalance.
I had no idea the US was not part of the real world, though I agree that many of the citizens do not seem acquainted with it.
So in terms of limiting death, it would have been better if the Iraqi military was stronger?
I don’t think I need to if the argument is about strong or weak militaries causing death. Not about whether it’s better to live under a strong or weak military. Though I must say a militarized culture has led to much social upheaval domestically that should not be discounted.
No, just that your idea that weakness prevents war is not IMO well-founded.
It would have been better if Iraq hadn’t invaded, or if Kuwait had been strong enough to defend herself and deter attack. But the strong attack the weak. The strong becoming weak doesn’t change that - just creates another victim.
Iraq would have been less likely to attack had they a weaker military. Similarly, Israel is less likely to commit aggressive actions if they have a weaker military.
This sounds like utter bullshit. I have yet to read that the Japanese had any realistic expectation of defeating the US in a war and were more likely expecting to eventually negotiate a peace that would allow them to continue their adventurism.